1920-05-27

MEMORIAL TO THE LATE COLONEL G. H. BAKER, M.P.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Sir SAM HUGHES (Victoria) presented the first report of the special committee appointed to act with a like committee of the Senate in determining the form of a memorial to be erected in the Parliament Buildings to the late Colonel Baker, as follows:
The Special Committee appointed to confer and act with a like Committee of the Senate in determining the form of the memorial to be erected in the Parliament Buildings to the late Lieut-Colonel Baker, MP., beg leave to present the following as their first report:
At the request of the committees, made during the last session of Parliament, Major R. Tait MacKenzie, a noted Canadian artist and sculptor, prepared two alternative sketches of the proposed memorial, and at a recent meeting of the committees in joint session, the sketches were submitted and explained by Major Tait MacKenzie. Mr. John Pearson, architect of the Parliament Buildings, was present, and his views were also considered as to the merits of the suggested designs.
After several meetings and careful considera-ion, your committee beg to recommend that the site for the proposed memorial selected by your committee during the last session of Parliament and approved by both Houses be adhered to.
That the memorial be a figure in stone, about six feet six inches in height, in high relief, carved to a likeness of the late Lieut.-Colonel Baker in military uniform, and set in a shallow niche on a pedestal four feet in height; the figure itself and the background to l.c made out of a solid block of limestone, which would replace the part of the wall in the site chosen by your committee last session.
It is submitted that a figure in stone, in preference to a bronze figure, would fit in more harmoniously with the architecture of the building, and forming part of the building, would be a more fitting tribute to one who so gallantly laid down his life for the Empire.
With regard to the inscription on the proposed memorial, your committee recommend that the following be inscribed on the front of the pedestal:
"Lieutenant-Colonel George Harold Baker, M.P., Fifth Canadian Mounted Rifles,
Killed in action, June second, 1916,
At the battle of ' Sanctuary Wood.' Erected by order of the Parliament of Canada." and that the selection of suitable inscriptions for the right and left sides of the figure be submitted in a subsequent report of your committee, and for this purpose your committee further recommend that they be given leave to sit again, and to report from time to time.
A clay model in miniature of the memorial is on view in room No. 534.
Your committee have been informed by Major MacKenzie and the architect that the estimated cost of the proposed memorial will be in the neighbourhood of $12,000, and your commute i* teg to recommend that such an amount be placed in the Supplementary Estimates at the present session to defray the cost of the said memorial.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Sir SAM HUGHES moved:: That in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report of the Special Committee appointed to confer and act with a like Committee of the Senate in determining the form of the memorial to be erected in the Parliament Buildings to the late Lieut.-Colonel George Harold Baker, M.P., the said committee be authorized to sit again, and to report from time to time.


Mr. SPEAKER:: 1 am not aware that this motion is required, inasmuch as the committee has not made its final report; hut there can be no harm in its being adopted if the House approves.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1.	Referring to page ZZ43 of the 4th volume of the Auditor General's Report, was the $65,515.59 paid to Johnston and Higgins, of New
' York, for insurance on the steamer " Voyageur"?
2.	If so, what period did this insurance cover?
3.	With what insurance companies was this insurance placed?
4 What rate was paid on the hull?
5.	What was the amount of commission paid to Johnston and Higgins?
6.	Were tenders asked for by public advertisement?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	January 20, 1919, to January 20, 1920.
3.	A list of the companies with which the insurance was placed on the hull, etc., giving the rates charged and the amount placed with each company is attached.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	No commission was paid Johnson and Higgins by the department.
fi No.


ALBERTA PENITENTIARY.
Mr. WHITE (Victoria):: 1.	What was the total number of prisoners serving time in the Alberta penitentiary on January 1, 1920?
2.	How many officials were employed and what was the cost of maintenance for the last fiscal year?


Rt. Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	132.
2.	Permanent officers employed March
31, 1920-38.	Expenditure for maintenance of convicts for the year 1918-19 (last completed year), 312,961.14.


VESSELS UNDER RAILWAY COMMISSION.
Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):: 1. How many boats are under control of the Railway Commission as regards rates, tolls, tariff agreements and arrangements?


Hon. J. D. REID:: The above question
was answered on a previous occasion by the minister in the House of Commons on May 17, 1920. See Hansard No. 53, page 2491.


BRITISH EMPIRE STEEL CORPORATION.
Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):: 1.	What companies operating in Canada or in other countries do the promoters of the British Empire Steel Corporation intend to include within the proposed merger?
2.	Where are said companies located?
3.	When'and where were said companies incorporated?
4.	What is the present capitalization of each of the companies which it is proposed to absorb?
5.	What is the basis on which each company enters the amalgamation?
6.	What is the total capital of the British Empire Steel Corporation and the division of the share capital of that corporation?


Rt. Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 1.	No information.
2,	3, 4, 5 and 6. Answered by No. 1.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.


[Stage Direction]
Rt, Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister) moved:
That on and after Saturday, the 29th instant, until the end of the present session the House shall sit on Saturdays, and that the order of business on Saturday shall be the same as on Friday; and also, that on and after Tuesday, the 1st June next, until the end of the present session, the House shall meet at 11 o'clock in the morning of each day except Sundays, and in addition to the usual intermission at six o'clock, p.m., there shall also be an intermission every day from one to three o'clock, p.m.
Be said:	We have now entered upon
the fourth month of the session, and there is a good deal of business still on the Order Paper. Representations have been made to me from both sides of the House that we should sit longer hours and should sit on Saturdays. I hope that the House will be willing to accept the motion for these reasons. I have not yet had an opportunity of making to my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King) the statement with regard to further business which I promised a day or two ago, but I am entirely in the hope that it will not be necessary for the Government to bring down any further measures of a controversial character.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Lost.


Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am
sure that every hon. member of the House appreciates the Prime Minister's motive m desiring to have the proceedings of this session brought to a conclusion as speedily as possible to permit hon. members to return to their homes and give some attention to their private business. I feel it a public duty however, to point out that, with the Government's programme what it is, and the progress we have thus far made being what it is, it would appear to be very much against the public interest that we on this side should, at this stage of the proceedings of the House, acquiesce in the resolution which my right hon. friend has moved.
We are here for the purpose of giving attention to the public business of Canada. A certain amount of 'the country's business

has been brought before us; but we have on the Order Paper notice of other legislation that is to be introduced, of which we have no particulars at the present time, and we have still before us for completion the main work of the session. May I point out that it is no fault of hon. gentlemen on this ' side, nor, indeed is it the fault of any hon. member of the House that we have reached this season of the year with so little accomplished in the transaction of the principal business of this session. If little has been accomplished thus far, it is certainly the fault of the Government, first of all in having called the session so late in the year, and secondly, in being so tardv in bringing down much of their important legislation.
May I point out what seems to me to be the effect of the motion of my right hon. friend? Only nine days ago, on May 18, the Budget was introduced, and it is recognized throughout the Dominion that it is one of the most important Budgets this Parliament, has ever been called upon to consider. It is suggested that we shall sit morning, afternoon and night, six days in the week, Saturday being included. In addition to the Budget, we have still before us the Franchise Bill, which is -another of the most important pieces of legislation ever -introduced into this House. We have considered in committee a large part of the Franchise Bill, but the most contentious clauses still remain. Then there are the Estimates of the different departments of the Government, and thus far Parliament has had opportunity to consider little or nothing with respect to past public expenditures or appropriations for the ensuing year. I have made a summary of what has been passed thus far in the way of Estimates. On March 23, some Estimates in respect to shipbuilding were passed; on March 30, an item of the Estimates of the Railway Department; on April 15, the Civil Service bonus, (one-sixth of the amount); on April 23 and May 6, Estimates of the Department of Marine and Fisheries; on April 26, Soldiers' Land Settlement Estimates. That is practically all that this House has thus far considered of the Estimates. Yet, this Parliament is to be asked to expend for the public service in the ensuing year an amount running into many millions of dollars.
The Government's motion means this: that we are called on to deal with the most important matters before the country under conditions where each member will be obliged to give morning, -afternoon and

night to the proceedings of the House. In other words, it looks as though the Government had sought to bring about what 1 would call "one big drive," whereby to jam through the House legislation of vital importance to the country under conditions which make impossible proper attention, consideration, or criticism. It is physically impossible for members to si't here morning, afternoon and night, six days in the week, and give to legislation of this importance the attention it ought to receive.
Let me direct the attention of the House to the Bills that you, Mr. Speaker, have called within the last few minutes. On the Order Paper, under the heading "Introduction of Bills," there is the following list of Bills still to be introduced by the Government :
An Act to amend The Insurance Act, 1917.
An Act to amend the Criminal Code.
An Act to amend the Penitentiary Act.
An Act to amend the Trade Mark and Design Act.
An Act to amend the Irrigation Act.
An Act to amend the Admiralty Act.
An Act to amend The Naturalization Act, 1919.
An Act to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
An Act to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act (Nova Scotia).
Either these are meaningless bite of legislation, or they are very important measures. If they are important measures, members of this House should have opportunity of studying them before they are called upon to register their votes for or against their several clauses. There will be no opportunity for any hen. member to get into communication with his constituents or other parties who are interested in the legislation; or to realize what public opinion as reflected in the press may be as regards these measures if they are pressed under such conditions.
We have yet to deal with practically all of the Estimates; we have the consideration of all the resolutions mentioned in the Budget ; we have the contentious clauses of the Franchise Bill. .My right hon. friend has just assured us that there will be nothing further of a controversial nature, which is a fortunate thing, but I shall be very much surprised if we do not have to consider further Supplementary Estimates or something other of a nature which should receive careful attention. In the public interest, therefore, it is desirable that at this stage we should ask ourselves just what is expected of members of Parliament who are sent here to transact the business of the country. I can well understand that every hon. member is feeling very keenly the sacrifice he is making in being absent from his home and not having an opportunity of attending to his private business-. I can realize, particularly in the case of many -members from the West where the seasonal nature of their callings requires their presence at this time of the year, that they would like to be ah home attending to their work, and not be obliged to have someone else look after it or else leave it undone. These may be reasons for the Government -considering what -may be owing hon. members in the matter of indemnities to which they may -be entitled under conditions as they now exist in the country, and as they have developed since the war. -But I contend that the first duty of a member of Parliament is to give his time to public work, and that he should not seek to hurry through important legislation so that he can get back to his private business. I hope the Prime Minister will appreciate the force of these few remarks, which I make simply because I believe it is all-important in the public interest that the business of the House should not he rushed through with undue haste.
May I point out this to my hon. friends opposite? As the Prime Minister has mentioned, we have been in session for three months and are now entering upon the fourth month. The time of this Parliament has been taken up for the -most part with amending legislation passed at previous sessions of this very Parliament, many of which amendments have been rendered necessary solely because of the undue haste with which this legislation had been rushed through at a previous session. I have a list of the legislation which has thus far been considered, and I will draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the extent to which the time of the House has been taken up, at the instance of the Government, with a lot of second rate measures- -because that is all they amount to-to the exclusion of the important work of the session. We have had before is, for example, .an Act respecting the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to amend a section regarding pensions which -bad already -been amended in 1919. We have had the Franchise Bill, which is in reality a re-enactment of an old measure with additional amendments. There was an Act to amend the Currency Act, 1910, which Act had been amended at the first session of 1919 and has come in for further amendment at this session. There was an Act to

amend and consolidate the Acts relating to patents of invention. This Act was amended in the first session of 1919, and again in the second session of 1919. There was an Act to amend the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, another Act that had been passed previous to the session of 1919 and which was amended in 1919. This session still further amendments are brought in. Other measures are the following: An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, previously amended at several sessions, including the first and second sessions of 1919; an Act respecting Food and Drugs, a'so amended at both the first and second sessions of 1919; an Act respecting Commercial Feeding Stuffs, amended at the second session of 1919; an Act to amend the Dominion Lands Act, previously amended at the first and second sessions of 1919. An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, previously amended at. the first and second sessions of 1919; an Act to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918, and the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1919; an Act to confirm the agreement between the Grand Trunk Railway and His Majesty, which the Government admitted was presented to Parliament to correct certain errors that had been made, and made on account of the undue haste with which the measure had been rushed through at the last session of Parliament; an Act to amend tl e Technical Education Act, which had been amended at the first session of 1919, an Act to amend the Industrial Disputes Act, 1907, which had been previously amended in 1918 and was further amended ibis year, much, I think, to the disadvantage of the legislation; an Act to amend the Soldier Settlement Act, amended in 1919; an Act to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, previously amended in 1918; an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, previously amended in the first and second sessions, 1919; an Act to amend the Oleomargarine Act passed in 1919; and finally an Act to amend the Inspection and Sale Act, previous amendments to which were made in 1918.
There is a long legislative programme, bat what does it amount to? It is simply bringing back to this Parliament, to occupy the time of members of this House, a lot or legislation to be amended, some of the amendments being wholly secondary and unimportant. On the face of it, it is a confession that in previous years the Government's legislation was so ill-digested that within a year they have had to come 
back to Parliament for further amendments.
I fear that the way we shall be rushing tl,rough legislation in the next few weeks, if we have morning, afternoon, and evening sittings, will mean that the time of another session, a year hence, will be taken up again with a lot of further amendments of this sort.
1 might also direct the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite to the fact that we have not yet obtained from the Government a statement of the Civil Service classification. We shall be called upon to vote appropriations for the Civil Service. In the Estimates presented to Parliament this year, the explanatory details of Civil Government usually printed are omitted. I hardly think the country will expect Parliament to pass the appropriation necessary for Civil Government until we get these essential details.
There are also several important reports that have not yet been brought down: There has been no report, as far as I can see, of the Public Printing and Stationery, the Militia Council, the Geological Survey, Mines Branch, the Penitentiaries Branch, Department of Justice, and the Archives Branch. Then we have no Parliamentary documents from the Department of Trade and Commerce relating to Steamship Subsidies, the Trade of Canada, Grain Commissioners, Criminal Statistics, Weights and Measures, Dominion Statistics.
We have not yet had the railway statistics brought down. It was only seven days ago that the Minister of Railways presented to this House the report of the Department of Railways and Canals, and it was only thirteen days ago that the fourth Volume of the Auditor-General's report was presented to the House. Yet hon. members of this House are supposed to have mastered the details of these different reports. The reports a!re supposed to have been presented to the people's representatives in this House, and we are supposed to have examined the legislation that is before Parliament in the light of these different documents. Mr. Speaker, it makes Parliamentary government a farce when legislation is proceeded with in that fashion. That is not the procedure that ought to be adopted or followed by a deliberative assembly. As I said, it may be a satisfactory method of conducting warfare. It may be one way of effecting a great drive so that there will be great confusion when millions of dollars of the people's money are about to be voted, but it is not the method which should be adopt-

ed in a deliberative assembly having the responsibility which this Parliament is called upon to exercise. I hope under the circumstances that my right hon. friend will consider, first, the public interest, and secondly, the private wishes of individual members.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I regret I was not in the Chamber when file Prime Minister made his statement regarding the resolution we are now discussing. I have listened with much interest to the speech of the leader of the Opposition-of the Opposition at that end of the Chamber. First, I would offer just one word of criticism of the Government in the most friendly way. I think they have been a little dilatory this session in brnging down the legislation which they had to present to Parliament. While absent through illness, I read the reports of the debates, and I feel that considerable time was lost in the first six or eight weeks of the session. Might I suggest that the Government in future get its legislation down before the House a little earlier in the session?
There is a good deal of force in the arguments advanced by the leader of the Opposition. We are here concerned with serious business. We have yet the greater part of the Estimates to consider and pass upon, and the expenditure of large sums of the public money at this time ought to be careful!;; scrutinized. Nevertheless, on the other hand, X feel that for the members' from Western Canada and the Maritime Provinces there is a real hardship in sitting here a greater length of time than is absolutely necessary. Being a man of peace, and this little group around me being men of peace also, may I offer a suggestion to the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition? It is this, that we defer Saturday sittings until perhaps a week or two weeks, from next Saturday, and that instead of having mornings sittings we assemble at two o'clock in the afternoon from the beginning of next week, and continue to meet at that hour until the end of the session. I believe that in that way we could accomplish as much work as by morning sittings. The position of hon. members in regard to morning sittings is this:	Some of the committees are still at work. All hon. members have correspondence to look after, they must study the legislation before the House, and have to attend to other matters that are coming up daily. With morning sittings we have no opportunity to attend to all this. With lunch at one o'clock, I
see no reason why we could not assemble at two, sit till six, reassemble at eight and adjourn at the usual hour. I think that in that way we should make just as much progress as by having morning sittings. Being a humble individual I offer this, suggestion to the Government and the leader of the Opposition for their consideration.


Mr. H. A. MACKIE (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I have on more than one occasion voiced my feelings and opinions in connection with the work of the House. Living three thousand miles away, I have come here for the purpose of transacting the public business, as we all have, as has been stated by the leader of the Opposition. It has been my desire to attend to that work regularly, and I believe that I am one of the members who attend the sittings of the House as assiduously as possible. My grievance is this:	that by arrangement
between the two whips in this House hon. gentlemen across the aisle leave here on Friday afternoon and return on Monday night, as do hon. members on this side of the House from the province of Ontario, and the quorum in this House from Friday until Monday is maintained by the members from the West, until these other gentlemen have attended to the pleasure of their families and their business at home.
As to the accusation of the leader of the Opposition, that this Government was attempting to make a drive in the last days of the session, I would remind him of the fact that last session he was very desirous of going home at an early stage of the game. So far as the measures on the Order Paper are concerned, they have been on the Order Paper for the last two months and it is the fault of hon. members themselves if they are not familiar with the proposed legislation. My hon. friend has touched upon indemnities. Let him rise in his seat now and say he is in favour of increased indemnities.


Mr. BUREAU:: Well, well.


Henry Arthur Mackie: So faT as I am
concerned, I have no objection to remaining here twelve months if it is necessary, and I am paid for it, but under the present schedule of pay I am not willing to remain here while the members from Quebec and Ontario enjoy themselves at the opening of jockey club meets or at home, or attend to their office and business three days in the week while the members from the West are left here to transact the public business. Those gentlemen take temporary rooms in

Ottawa, but we are required to sign leases for six months if we desire to have permanent quarters. Our friends opposite go home on Friday and save money by leaving the city, and in addition to this they enjoy the great advantage of spending considerable time with their families. We, on the other hand, are compelled to remain here continuously. We on this side are anxious to carry on the business of the country without interruption, but we have not the advantage of saving money, as hon. gentlemen from Ontario and Quebec who are objecting to this have by taking temporary rooms and going home at regular intervals. I think that the suggestions of the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Crerar) come with bad grace. We all regret, I am sure, his absence from the House recently through illness, but we have had to attend constantly to the business of the House; and if the hon. gentleman had devoted less time to the organizing of the Farmers' party in the East he would have been in a position to know more of the business of this session. There are no committees sitting that will embarrass the attendance of hon. gentlemen in the House. Within the last week no committees, except one, have been considering any business of the House, and yet 1 may point out the fact that the attendance on this side has been limited to three or four gentlemen, including the Minister of Finance-


Mr. LAPOINTE:: That is the only truth in the hon. gentleman's speech.
Mr. H. A. MACKIE (Edmonton)-while last night there were but barely twenty hon. members opposite. Is not the hypocrisy of this matter apparent? Hon. gentlemen are putting forward the plea that they are eager to attend to the -business of the House, while as a matter of fact, at one sitting, there are only three members on this side and twenty members opposite, the Farmers' party being represented by one. Those hon. gentlemen who make professions of anxiety to attend scrupulously to the business of the House, should see to it, through the medium of their Whip, that they are in their seats while legislation is being put through, instead of attending to their own business at home. I want to go on with the business of the House so that I may be able to go home and attend to my own within a reasonable time.	.


Ernest Lapointe: This is the second occasion on which the

hon. member has made the sweeping statement that all hon. gentlemen in this House coming from Quebec and Ontario go home on Friday and are absent on Monday. This general allegation on the part of my hon. friend opposite I do not want to- go unchallenged. There are many hon. members from Quebec and Ontario who are present in this House on Fridays and on Mondays as well; and I desire to tell my hon. friend, further, that all, or practically all the members from Quebec on this side of the House remain in the House every day of the week, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays as well as the days on which he says they are absent. For the last two weeks we have sat in this House until twelve o'clock at night and sometimes one o'clock in the morning, and as the hon. gentleman has just truly remarked there have been occasions when there were only three or four hon. members present on the other side of the House. Sir, it is those gentlemen who remain here all the time, from three o'clock in the afternoon until twelve at night, that are entitled to some consideration in this matter. They give their full attention to the legislation that is brought before the House and study it with all the care it demands. They have to be here all the time, and it is unfair to ask those few-if there are only a few who so conscientiously attend to their parliamentary duties-to come back here at eleven o'clock in the morning after having spent a strenuous and trying day in this House until a late hour at night.


Mr. H:: A. MACKIE (Edmonton): May 1 ask my hon. friend a question? Is it not a fact that you have attended to your own private practice during the session,-something I have not done myself?


Ernest Lapointe: No Sir; it is not a fact. Let me tell my hon. friend that I have been here all the time; and I think I may fairly claim, Mr. Speaker, that I have been diligent in my attendance. I have endeavoured to give to the consideration of the public questions that come before this House that zealous study and attention which all legislation should receive.


Jacques Bureau: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: I am here promptly at three o'clock in the afternoon and I remain, not for a few moments and then go away; I stay, practically speaking, all the time. I say again, Mr. Speaker, that it is eminently unfair to ask me or any other hon. gentleman to come here at eleven

o'clock in the morning after spending a hard day in the House. There is no one in this House who would be more pleased to see the session over than myself.


Jacques Bureau: Except me.


Ernest Lapointe: It is all right for hon. gentlemen carelessly to say, " Let us go home;" but we have something else to do, Mr. Speaker. Our mandate demands something more than that we shall just come here and, when it suits our .fancy, go home again irrespectively of what we may have done in the way of business. We must give to the legislation-to the Estimates and to all the business that comes before us-that consideration which the people expect us to give to our public duties. Business well considered is business well done; business rushed is business ill done; and it ill becomes hon. gentlemen who are seldom seen in their seats in this House to cheer their 'ellow members when they make the irresponsible suggestion that we should close up everything and go home.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: I depreciate very much the practice of washing dirty linen in public and I also think that on the whole the proposition of the Prime Minister (Sir itobert Borden), being in accordance, as it is, with precedent of many years' standing, is a very good one. Personally I think we had better adapt ourselves as best we can to the common sense of the situation and let common sense guide us. For my part, I support the Prime Minister in this matter.


Jacques Bureau: I think we have strayed somewhat from the question under consideration, and my hon. friend from East Edmonton (Mr. Maickie) in his desire to make an argument vented a little grievance Which evidently he thinks he has. If the hon. gentleman bad stated that when members from Quebec and Ontario went home on Fridays and stayed away from the House they hampered the progress of the business of the House, he would have made some point. But that is not his contention. He simply says that some members can go home and spend time with their families, while he has to remain in Ottawa. Now, Sir, as the hon. gentleman from Red Deer has said, this question is one of common sense, and the point to be settled is this: how much can human nature endure, and to what extent can men be taxed physically if they are to perform their duties thoroughly? If we are going to come here at eleven o'clock in the
morning and sit until one, and then come back at three and sat until six, returning at eight and sitting indefinitely to all hours of the night, and sometimes until one or two in the morning-for the Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie) in his zeal in putting through the Franchise Bill showed an unmistakable tendency to adopt late hours-then it will be utterly impossible for hon. gentlemen to give anything like serious consideration to the work that comes before them. There are still some very important matters to be dealt with, Sir. The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) just now read the list of Bills which still appear on the Order Paper, and one of which is a Bill to amend the Insurance Act of 1917. The Minister of Finance, who is to promote that Bill, knows that it involves very important considerations; and from correspondence and despatches I have received in connection with the matter, I may state that every big industry, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, is interested in that	Bill, which	will	affect	theirrates	of	insurance and will also
affect their business to a large extent. Now, these people have a right to get their views put before Parliament, but we cannot help them. As my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition has said, practically no Estimates have been brought down. The Budget is still under discussion, and we are told that the Government will require more money. Well, Mr. Speaker, the people are entitled to know what has been done with the money that has been already voted. When we voted one-sixth, of the appropriations I registered my protest, because I thought the Estimates ought to have been brought down, and that, except as to salaries, it was unfair to ask any hon. member to commit himself to any appropriation without first having an opportunity to express his views thereon, for the discussion of these Estimates is the only way whereby we can get the information we require.
As my hon. leader has said', the latter part of the Auditor General's Report has been brought down only recently, and the report of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) has been on the Table only within the last six or seven days and contains very few details. Then, too, questions have remained on the Order Paper unanswered, or badly answered, and we have been unable to get further answers. When the Government do not want to answer a question, they just say: "Make it a motion for a return," and that question never sees the light of day again.

Although I am mot as young as many hon. members, I have as much endurance as any of my hon. friends, and I say that I cannot rightly do my duty if I have to be here at eleven o'clock in the morning until midnight. We on this side of the House have to be in our places anyway, but conditions are different on the other side, and my hon. friend from East Edmonton (Mr. Mackie) let the cat out of the bag. If the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) is in the House his colleagues need not be in attendance; and the same remark applies if any other minister is in his seat; but we have got to be here, anyway. Another circumstance that makes conditions easier for them than for us is that they know in advance by reports prepared by departmental officials what business is to be taken up, so their brief is prepared before they come to the House, and all they have to do is to put their case forward, and their work is done; but our work only then begins. And how are we going to do our work satisfactorily if we have to begin at eleven o'clock In the morning and continue until probably two o'clock next morning? I say it is a physical impossibility.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that we are all desirous of going home. I realize the hardship of my hon. friends from the West and I sympathize with them at being separated from their families for such a long time. But I dismiss the argument of the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Mackie). We have to pay for our rooms the same as gentlemen from the West. I pay for my room by the week whether I am here or not, for I am not going to carry my rags home under my arm every Friday nigfht.


Mr. MACKIE (Edmonton):: I wish to
correct a statement made by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bureau). I said "some" hon. members from Quebec and "some" hon. members from Ontario gave up their rooms.


Jacques Bureau: Some members from Quebec go home on Friday and spend less money than other hon. members who remain here. I may tell my hon. friend that it is not a question whether he spends more money than I do, or vice versa; it is a question whether common sense justifies the proposition to sit mornings and Saturdays. If we are humanly able to stand that pressure and discharge our duties satisfactorily, no objection can be urged; but I feel that I cannot endure the strain nor get through my work satisfactorily under such conditions.
It is just as great a hardship to me as to other hon. members not to be able to get

back to my office, perhaps more so, because I have not the means that some others have to render me independent of my profession; but in spite of that I am ready to do my duty and to sit here until September, if necessary. And every hon. member ought to be ready to do the same. As my hon. friend said, we are just at the crucial sections of the Franchise Act where we are certain of a conflict of opinion. We are only human, and the strain of long hours is bound.to tell on us. During the war we watched anxiously the morale of our troops; and if our electors watch our morale during two weeks of hot weather while we are sitting from eleven o'clock in the morning until the early hours of the following morning, I think they will notice a decline in it, and that those sections of the Franchise Act will be put through without proper discussion, simply because hon. members will be unable to give proper attention to them by reason of being physically unfit owing to attempting what is physically impossible. Besides, hon. members will not be fit otherwise, because they will not have sufficient time between two o'clock in the morning and eleven o'clock next morning to study the questions that ai 3 to engage their attention at the next sitting.
I do not think sitting on Saturdays will advance business at all. The suggestion to open the day's business at two o'clock I think is reasonable, and I for one am willing to accept that proposal, or we might even commence work at a quarter to two, but certainly not at eleven o'clock in the morning. For that reason I shall oppose the motion made by the Prime Minister.
Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister) Mr. Speaker,-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If the Prime Minister
exercises his right of formally closing the debate hon. members will be precluded from further discussion of this motion. But as in such a case as this more or less latitude is usually allowed, I am sure the Prime Minister will have the unanimous consent of the House to speak without closing the debate.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: Mr. Speaker,
it has never been the practice in my experience of twenty-four years to press a motion of this kind when it is seriously opposed by the other side of the House. Therefore, I would not think of doing so now in view of what has been said by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition.
But my hon. friend made one or two observations which I think require a reply

from me. If he is under the illusion that this Parliament sitting from the first day df January until the thirty-first day of December would pass legislation in such perfect form that it would never require any amendment, I fear that my hon. friend will be sadly disillusioned. I venture this statement also; that if he will look over the legislation of the past, under whatever Government it may be, he will find that the major portion consists in amendments of Acts already passed; and for this very good reason,-that almost every conceivable subject under the sun has been dealt with at some time or other, and further legislation, necessitated by new developments and new conditions, is ordinarily made by amendment to legislation already existing. I do not think therefore that the list of amendments which m,y hon. friend has placed before the House has any real significance so far as this particular question is concerned.
It is, of course, highly desirable that we should get on with the business of the House. When hon. gentlemen on the other side speak of hardship and difficulty, I am ready to give every consideration to what they say, but I would like to point out to them that if there be any hardship in beginning the session at eleven o'clock in the morning and continuing until perhaps midnight, the hardship is as severe upon members of the Government as it is upon hon. members.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, no.


Robert Laird Borden: I beg your
pardon.


Jacques Bureau: Some one said "Oh, no." I think he is right, too, because the ministers stay here by turns.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, my hon.
friend had at one time some experience in a government, and if he will refresh his memory I think he will withdraw the statement he has just made.


Jacques Bureau: That is my recollection.


Robert Laird Borden: In reply to the
statement by the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Mackie) that the ministers were absent from their seats both yesterday afternoon and evening, that is true, but they were not absent from this building. The mere putting through of the routine business day by day occupies very considerable time, and of course there are questions of policy regarding legislation to be brought down which demand conferences during a considerable portion of the
day among the members of the Government. My hon. friends the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), the member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) and the member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) will readily recognize the truth of what I say in that regard. However, that is perhaps enough of those matters.
Just one word as to the legislation that has been brought down. I am informed that the Franchise Bill was introduced on the 26th day ol March, and that up to the present time no less than seventeen sittings of the Committee of the Whole House have been fieveted to the mea.-ure. I would venture to think that such a degree of activity does not indicate any remissness on the part of the Government. I am also told by my colleagues, who were here when I unfortunately had to be absent, the Government legislation has been ready on every day on which Government business could proceed, and that there has been no delinquency on the part of the ministry in bringing forward such legislation for the consideration of the House.
If my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition recalls the history of legislation in this House-since I have been a member of Parliament at least-he will remark this: That measures of corresponding importance debated in the early part of the session necessarily receive very much more of discussion at all events than measures introduced in the latter part of the session. That is necessarily the case.	It always has
been the case; it always*will be the case; and I do not think that in the future that lies before my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition he will ever be able to modify very seriously that condition o.f affairs so long as parliamentary institutions continue as they are. It is in the very nature o.f things. I admit that if it were believed possible that a remedy could be found it should be 4 p.m. sought; but in my public experience I have never yet been able to devise any remedy for that condition. It unfortunately has proved in the case of all governments in the years that aie behind us, that legislation introduced at a later stage of the session has sometimes gone through without the same attentive consideration that would be accorded to it in the early part of the session.
I am content to let the motion stand for the present and to consider the proposal made by the hon. member for Marquette for which I think a good deal may be said. The only purpose the Government has in

mind is to get on with the business of the House as expeditiously as possible consistently with the public interest; and to impose no undue hardship upon any hon. member on either side. That is our purpose and our desire. I shall let the matter stand, and d'iscusis it further with my hon. 'friend the leader of the Opposition.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queen's):: 
Robert Laird Borden: In reply to
my hon. friend let me say that in the ordinary course I think this matter has always been one of agreement between both sides of the House. I think, however, this may be said-that usually forenoon sittings and Saturday sittings have not been commenced until the programme of the Government is fully before the House. I think that is a fair statement to make.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The motion stands.



THE BUDGET.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, May 26, the debate on the motion of Sir Henry Drayton (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. W. S. Fielding.
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve):: Mr. Speaker, in the few remarks
I intend to offer I shall he as brief as possible so as no-t fo delay the much desired 'prorogation df Parliament. Moreover, the debate on the Budget has well nigh been exhausted, and I do not suppose that I oan add very much to the very brilliant addresses wMch have already been delivered. The Budget Speech of the Minister of Finance has at least Mr. Speaker, one great merit:	It faith-

fully reflects the financial situation of Canada to-day. If my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) will permit me, I will compare his speech to a little piece of art which I saw in an old cathedral during my last visit to Europe. Visiting the cathedral of Rouen I noticed in the rear portion of the cathedral a little font-a real piece of art-[DOT] designed I am told by an old monk who worked at it for years and years. The especial feature about that little font is that when the passing traveller looks within it he will find reflected there the whole of the magnificent proportions of the cathedral, but unfortunately is seen upside down and reduced to a miniature. The Budget Speech, Mr. Speaker, recalls to [DOT]my mind that little font I saw in the *Gothic cathedral at Rouen. It reflects the Canada of to-day but the picture is all topsy-turvy and how mighty small it is aftei being under the direction of hon. gentlemen opposite
However, Mr. Speaker, the present Minister of Finance, as has been stated on several occasions during this debate, is not responsible for the awkward position in which he finds himself, and if on the present occasion I cannot give him my support I, at least, can offer him my sincere sympathy. We are told that there will be no revision of the tariff in spite of the many promises that have been made to Parliament from year to [DOT] year within, at least, the last five years. [DOT]But of course we must face a revision of taxation. I do not object to income tax; indeed, I have advocated it. Nor do I object to any tax or impost on the luxuries of life. But speaking on behalf of my constituents; on behalf of the man on the street, I do strenuously object to any tax on the necessities of life. One has not to be much versed on political economy to know that the basic wants of man are threefold : food, clothing and shelter. These necessities, in a cold country like Canada, should not be taxed. Any tax on the necessities of life are a handicap to the labourer, to the worker; they press more heavily on the poor man than they do on any other man in the community. They also handicap the producers and work in restraint of trade. I shall not quote at this moment the various opinions on this subject as expressed by the newspapers of Canada on *both sides of politics, but I only wish to quote the opinion of the man on the street. Upon reading the tariff resolutions of the Finance Minister, one of my electors, a respected citizen of the 177
county of Maisonneuve who has quite a large family and who has only small earnings to support it, wrote me the following:
Automobiles for passengers; former duty, 10 per cent plus war tax 7J per cent-17i per cent; -present duty, 15 per cent, plus one per cent excise on wholesalers only; in reality, a reduction on the greatest luxury of the age. The duties-
And I agree with my correspondent.
The duties on automobiles should be at least 25 per cent; that much was expected by the [DOT] importers. As regards clothing, boots and shoes, if the principle of taxing luxuries is to be adopted-and it seems to be generally accepted as necessary-let luxuries be taxed, not necessities. The minimum prices on all these commodities subject to taxation should be raised at least 50 per cent.
Take shoes. There are several large manufacturers of shoes in the constituency which I have the honour to represent.
It is impossible to-day to buy a shoe such as everybody in towns and cities is obliged to wear for less than $10 to $12. What are generally called Oxford walking shoes for ladies cost from $12 to $16. Is it not absurd to fix the minimum price subject to taxation at $9? Take confectionery. Not long ago Laura Secord chocolates were selling at 70 cents a pound; they now ask SO cents, making an additional profit of five per cent for the company. They do not give or issue any slip or check to the customer ; how much of this will go to the Government? The cost of sugar at retail is 22 cents a pound. Is not tlia price of Page and Shaw's or Neilson's candies at $1.25 a pound high enough to warrant the imposition of the tax of ten per cent on the manufacturer and not on the common people, not on the consumer?
Take sporting goods. I have many young sturdy Canadians in my division of Maisonneuve. French-Canadian families as you are aware are large and the boys are all more or less sportsmen.


Mr. BELAND:: Baseball champions.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, we have carried the honours on man>
occasions in Maisonneuve. Well, there is a tax of 50 cents and upwards on sporting goods. My correspondent says:
If there is one thing in which the young people of our towns and cities should be encouraged, it is the practice of sports for the maintenance of virility and health. The class in the community that is suffering most from the high cost of living is the salaried class, the wage-earning class, and this provision hits them almost exclusively. It is a provision that should be struck out.
Now, I have this remark to make regarding gold ornaments. Why should the Government not expropriate for coinage purposes all the gold mined, with the exception, for our provinces at least, of a certain quantity required for wedding rings and dental purposes? The



use of gold should be absolutely prohibited except where no substitute can be found, until our coinage reserve again reaches the fine percentage which it had attained in 1914.
Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest confidence in Mr. Breadner's ability. But Mr. Breadner, able as he is, faithful watch-dog of the treasury that he is. is not ubiquitous. I tell my hon. friend th^ Minister of Finance that the administration of his new law will be nothing less than a premium on fraud.
My hon. friend did not, in his Budget Speech, dilate on the question of expenditure. He is new in the saddle as Finance Minister; he should read the speeches delivered many years ago by that grand old man of England, William Ewart Gladstone, on the question of economy. Mr. Gladstone was, perhaps, never more eloquent than when he delivered his Budget speeches as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he was not ashamed to proclaim the following truths:
A Chancellor of the Exchequer must he prepared to be unpopular ; he must learn how to say no to many requests which are made to him ; he must be cheeseparing.
If there ever was an occasion when the Minister of Finance should practise cheeseparing, that occasion is now. My hon. friend says-and I believe he is sincere- that he will check the expenditure, and he appeals to hon. members on both sides to do the same. With the combination around him, I am afraid that on that question, at all events, my hon. friend, to repeat a phrase well known in Canadian politics, will be "nothing but a fly on the wheel." Let me offer him another suggestion. I already made one the other day to the House; I said, for instance, that our rules should *be so amended that ministers of the Crown should have a right to appear before both Houses of Parliament, whether they belonged to the one or to the other. I say to-day that you shall not check the tremendous expenditures of this country, unless at the beginning of the session a special committee is appointed to supervise the Estimates which are to be submitted to the House of Commons. That committee should have a right to send for books, to call for witnesses and experts in order to bring before the House only such items of expenditure as should be considered by Parliament. This seems to me a practical question, and though the reform may appear to be somewhat Tadieal, circumstances justify its adoption.
Let my hon. friend pause and ponder after having read the startling figures which

were given to this House the other day by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). In 1914, the expenditure per head was, in round figures, $24; in 1920, it has re-ached the enormous sum of $75 per head of the population. In 1914, the gross debt per head of the population was $71.75; in 1920, it is $334.90. In 1914, the net debt- per head of the population was $43.49; in 1920, it -is $215. These are stupendous figures, and my hon. friend should commence at once to eliminate from the Estimates any expenditures which might well be postponed until after Canada has resumed the proud position she occupied when she was financially led by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's.
My hon. friend will, I hope, think I am sincere in my advocacy of a. reduction in military expenditure. The war is now over, and the Englishman, being a plausible man, having the sagacity we know he has, has disbanded all his troops, and he ie now hard at- work to recuperate the trade and commerce of old England. Let Canada do likewise. We should reduce to its minimum the military expenditure of this country.
There are vague rumours regarding a naval expenditure. Many years ago when the treasury was overflowing with surpluses, I strongly supported the expenditure of several millions for the creation of a Canadian navy, manned by Canadian officers and Canadian sailors and flying with the British ensign, the Canadian flag. But those days have gone by, and we are face to face with heavy commitments and huge deficits which will paralyse the financial possibilities of this country for many years to come. We have had a visit from Lord Jellicoe, and since that visit we have been favoured with only a vague general answer as to the intentions of the Government in regard to the proposed navy. I do not know the intention of the Government nor of the minister who is at the head of the Naval Department, but al-1 I can say, in all sincerity, is this: This is a time for Canada to build, not warships, but friendships. How will yo-u build friendships? By giving something to do to my good and genial friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster). He requires some work in that department which was described many years ago, I think, by himself, as the fifth wheel of the Government coach. How will you build friendships? By letting the Minister of Trade and Commerce, instead of appointing semi-am-

bassadors to play at diplomacy at Washington and elsewhere, appoint [DOT]alert trade commissioners who will capture wider markets for Canada and will meet the competition, not only of Americans, but of Australians, New Zealanders, yes, and Britons too.
On this subject, we might learn a lesson from old England, from her political economy and her commercial sagacity. I was amused the other day, listening to my good friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) lecturing old England. Poor old England, in the throes of bankruptcy! Poor old England, having been the dupe of free trade for half a century! In fact, imy hon. friend said: "But new days have come, new times have arisen in England and Mr. Asquith himself-and he coupled with the name of Mr. Asquith that o'f Mr. Lloyd George-appointed a commission four years ago to study the question of key industries. I asked my hon. friend if recommendations had been made. My hon. friend answered in the affirmative, but he failed to tell me if the Parliament of Great Britain had put into concrete form on the Statute Book any of the recommendations o'f that commission. I thought my hon. friend knew more about England than I did. I have been only a few times in the Old Country, but I know this: John Bull is a practical and shrewed business man. There are, it is said, two great safety valves in England. There is a safety valve to protect England against the agitator, and you might see that safety valve at work every Sunday morning in Hyde Park, where you hear the long-haired agitator disclaiming against Boyalty, against the House of Lords and generally against the institutions of the land.


Jacques Bureau: Blowing off steam.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Ernest Lapointe: He is too good.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He goes on:
No doubt he is sick of the strife, and would be glad to return to those quiet walks of civic usefulness where his high and sincere character is known and valued.


Ernest Lapointe: He is a soul-saver.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Cromwell's utterance in respect of a certain type of public man is always bearing in mind, as a warning if nothing else-"A man never goes so far as when he doesn't know where he is going."
Then he turns to my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce and offers him the palm, the crown, not of thorn3, but of gold to adorn his brow:
Sir George Foster is incomparably the best debater in Parliament, and, although seventy-three, as lithe and Umber as when, a mere stripling (as politicians go), he made his first speech to the delight and wonder of the House. His equipment as a parliamentarian is complete, and his profound knowledge of finance, not to be held in light esteem at this perilous juncture of affairs. It is not against him that he was once a professor of political economy, but very much to the good. His voice is music; his choice of English shows that rare quality-conscience of phrase; his logic is always germane to the subject under discussion, and his vision of Imperial greatness rises at times into the domain of poetry. When, years ago, the grand old Motherland stood practically alone with the wolves of Europe ready to spring at her throat, he thrilled the whole Empire with the phrase, [DOT][DOT] splendid isolation "-a phrase just re-echoed in the January 19th Century by Major Hurst. He deserves well of his country; and if faithful public service, complete loyalty to his party and passionate devotion to British connection count for anything, the premiership should be his for the asking. To him the words in Tennyson's immortal poem surely apply:-
*' Old age hath yet his honour and his toil;
Death closes all; but something ere the end,
Some work of noble note, may yet be done
Not unbecoming men that strove with gods.
Come, my friends,
'Tis not too late to seek a newer world."
Yes, a change is surely at hand, as "The Onlooker" states. I am not against that change. At the present juncture a storm is raging and no one will deny that the ship of state is in danger. Indeed it has been on the rocks for many months. The crew

and the pilot, I am sorry to say, are not equal to the task of steering her course. Another crew and another captain are badly needed. It is true that my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) said the other day that the old hull could still carry the crew, the pilot, and the unfortunate passengers until 1922 or 1923. My hon. friend, being the master pilot of this Government, and having many sailing masters surrounding him, he is I think a judge of the hull of the ship of state and of the sailors and pilots in connection with it. Indeed, he is the gentleman who signs all the certificates. But let me tell him that if he thinks that the hull of the ship, as well as the crew, the captain and the passengers are all safe, he is sadly mistaken, because a ship cannot be safe when there are so many false lights on the shore. The sailors of this ship-whom I should call buccaneers-were united to carry on in that tragic year 1917; but they were united on one point and one point only, and that was the moral iniquity of the elections. Mr. Speaker, new conditions require new methods and new men. There are dark days in the history of every nation, though the people may be blessed with popular institutions and responsible government. This has been the case in Canada during the last five years; it was the case in England at the beginning of the last century. Every one conversant with history will remember that at the dawn of the nineteenth century, when the French Revolution and its horrors were haunting the minds of men, England under even the great Pitt established a system of domestic tyranny and a reign of terror. Habeas Corpus was suspended, right of public meeting was attacked, freedom of speech was denied and repressed. But a little group of men stood foursquare against the assailants of freedom. Fox, the generous Fox, espoused the cause of the oppressed; Daniel O'Connell claimed and obtained for Irishmen the right and privileges enjoyed by the Englishmen of his day and generation; Grey, Russell, Brougham, Jeffrey and Peel claimed and obtained in turn the abolition of the ruling oligarchy, the extension of the franchise, and the repeal of the Corn laws which established free trade. Sir, in England in those days they thought that no political democracy could be real that was not the reflection of economic democracy. A French writer has said "L'histoire est un perpetuel recommencement," which I might translate by the homely phrase that history repeats itself. Under the shadow of the great war, the winning of which can be ascribed
only to the young men who with unfaltering steps went to the front and with brave hearts climbed over the top,-under the shadow of that great war, I say Sir, the Government installed in Canada, as was done in England a century ago, a system of domestic tyranny and a reign of terror. The historian of the last five years, Mr. Speaker, after having described how our young Canadians fought and died to save democracy, will have to draw up a terrible indictment against the Government of the day. He will have to say that in their lust of power, in their desire-in unworthy mimicry of our brave soldiers-to entrench themselves in office, they have been guilty of the worst possible crime against society, that of shaking public confidence in our democratic institutions. The historian of the days that have just passed, will have to tell how the Government reinstated an old form of bureaucracy with all its baneful influences and dis-credib'.e methods. He will have to tell how the courts of the land, here in Ottawa, and in the province of Alberta, were silenced by the Minister of Justice at the point of the bayonet; and how regiments were seen tramping, in the law-abiding and God-'earing city of Quebec on Holy Friday to suppress supposed riots, staged, concocted and organized by "agents provocateurs." What a sorry spectacle, Sir! Parliameni flouted, absentee oligarchy, unreliable information, distrust of the common people, everything done in secret behind closed doors, a group of vainglorious men squandering public money to maintain a retinue of sycophants, protecting privilege, securing vested rights against molestation, delivering the country to the grasp of profiteering, extravagant war borrowing coupled with the creation of a monied aristocracy,- all this the historian will cite in his indictment against the Government. But, worse, still worse, he will tell of the deliberate destruction of the unity of Canada, that unity which, as a priceless heirloom, had been handed down from generation to generation to the great Canadian family by the Lafontaines and the Baldwins, the Cartiers and the Macdonalds, the Lauriers, the Mowats and the Blakes. Oh, that I were a Macaulay to draw up that indictment ! Never was there such an urgent need for a change of methods and a change of men. There is an old saying which is familiar to us all: "Government of the people for the people and by the people." This pregnant epigram is attributed to Abraham Lincoln, and I accept it as the

essence of Liberalism which the parity on your left, Mr. Speaker, represents in Canada; and the application of the principles which it implies, to the problems of Canadian politics in relation to national, imperial and world-wide interest is the work of the Liberal party in Canada. The aims of Liberalism have been and are to-day to remove inequality. The main battlements of privilege and vested authority have been won by Liberalism through centuries of struggle. The fight of Democracy for freedom, for equality of opportunity and for substantial justice to all individuals of the Commonwealth, still goes on and will continue to go on. There are still . inequalities of taxation to be righted, the oppression of vested interests in trade and in industry to be overcome, monopolies and trusts to be regulated; and in the sphere of economic legislation-a sphere with which the leader of the Liberal party is familiar-Liberalism still has its greatest work to do; the welfare of the common man at the common task is its first consideration.
Surprise has been expressed on both sides of the House, by some of my friends of the Conservative party and by some of my Progressive friends, at certain remarks made a few days ago by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). Yet, Sir, although I have differed on one or two important occasions with the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's-honourable men may differ at times-I have no hesitation in stating, and I believe I am voicing the sentiment of the country, that his speech taken from the beginning to the very end is that of a Canadian statesman. It is consistent with himself and with the traditions and the policy of the Reform party.
In 1896, Mr. Speaker, when the Liberal party, and I was one of them-yes, twenty-five years ago, I joined the House of Commons, and I am now one of the old members in years of service in this House, and my recollections are very vivid-as I say, when the Liberal party took office in 1896 it did so, not under the banner of free trade pure and undiluted, but it took office under the banner of tariff for revenue. The two landmarks of that fiscal policy are well-known and they were erected by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) who was the trusted Minister of Finance in those days. My hon. friend first gave the British preference in 1897-which the very loyal party had not dared to give to the Mother Country; and in 1911 he implemented that legisfMr. Lemieux.l
lation by the reciprocity agreement, which was appreciated in the words I quoted a moment ago by the present Prime Minister *of Great Britain.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, though surprise has
been expressed at his remarks was consistent with the Liberal traditions as regards the fiscal policy of our party. No one, I suppose, will question the staunch Liberalism and the honest convictions of the late leader of the party, the Hon. Edward Blake. Sir, allow me to quote from the address of Mr. Blake delivered in West Durham in 1882. The National Policy had been inaugurated by the Conservative party in 1879, with the standing offer of reciprocity with the United States. In his address Mr. Blake used the following language:
You know well that I do not approve

Liberal party in in this House, spoke words-of wisdom when he appealed to both sides of the House to restore harmony in Canada. Mr. Blake, who was our great leader before Sir Wilfrid Laurier was elected in 1887, often spoke about the relations which should exist between French and English and also between Protestants and Catholics in Canada. 1 well remember his words. They ought to be repeated; they ought to be learned in the schools of this country, not only in Ontario, but in Quebec as well. Fie said;
I hold those men false to the principles of religious freedom who would sow discord between Protestants and Roman Catholics on this subject. I freely render to my Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen, first, full religious freedom, and next their stipulated rights! but more, I say that being strong, we ought to be what the strong should always be-generous to the weak.
Measure full, heaped up and running over, is the measure to be given by the strong to the weak.
John Morley, honest John Morley, speaking on compromise, uses this language:
You have not converted a man, because you have silenced him-opinion and force belong to different elements. To think that you are able by social disapproval or other coercive means to crush a man's opinion, is as one who should fire a blunderbus to put out a star.
The great Lincoln once quoted Scripture to his purpose when he said at Springfield in 1858-and he understood human nature:
'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this Government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved-I do not expect the house to fall-but I do expect that it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.
Advocating, as I do, Canadian unity and restoration of public confidence between the two great races which compose this vast Dominion, I echo the words of Lincoln and say that 'a [DOT] house divided against itself cannot stand'; a nation cannot endure half loyal and half disloyal; I do not expect the nation to continue divided; but trusting in Divine Providence, I do expect and believe that, under the leadership of my hon friend and the guidance of the Liberal party, our country will at no distant date become all-Canadian.


Mr. GEORGE BRECKEN NICHOLSON (Algoma East):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to say a word or two on the subject of the Budget Speech and the amendment moved to the Budget by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), it is not
IMr. Uomieux.]
my intention to endeavour to follow the literary effort of the hon. member for Maison-neuve (Mr. Lemieux), who gave the House one of those rare treats that we always expect when the hon. member rises to speak, but who avoided the subject of the Budget and the subject of the amendment to the Bridget as much as he ipossibly could. There fell, however, from the lips of my hon. friend one or two observations, to which if I refer just briefly, I may be pardoned. My hon. friend stated that the Liberal party did not come into office in 1896 on a free trade policy. He also stated that it took the Liberal party a long time to reach the goal of Cartwright and Mackenzie on fiscal matters in this country. If we can understand the language of Cartwright and Mackenzie on fiscal matters and if we can understand the language laid down in the Liberal platform of 1893 and in the declaration of the leaders of the Liberal party at that time, I cannot agree with my hon. friend's statement that the Liberal party did not come into office in 1896, at least professing the principles of free trade. Every declaration that the country was able to get from the leaders of the Liberal party prior to the election of 1896 was condemnatory of everything that tended towards protection. In the words of the great leader, the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier himself, whose memory every member in this House reveres, "Protection was to be killed out and out, and its body was to be trampled in the dust." In the platform itself laid down at the Liberal convention of 1893 we find this:
We denounce the principle of protection as radically unsound, and unjust to the masses of the people, and we declare our conviction that any tariff changes based on that principle must fail to afford any substantial relief from the burden under which the country labours. This issue we unhesitatingly accept, and upon it we await with the fullest confidence the verdict of the electors of Canada.
I do, however, fully agree with my hon. friend when he stated that it took the Liberal party a long time to reach the goal in fiscal matters aimed at by Cartwright and Mackenzie. When the Liberal party came into office in 1896, the average tariff against imports into Canada was, in round figures, 29 per cent. When the Liberal party went out of office in 1911, after being fifteen years in power, the average tariff against imports into Canada was between 27i and 28 per cent. Giving them credit for reducing the customs tariff from 1 to li per cent, we still can accept at its face value the statement of my hon. friend that

' it- took the Liberal party a long time to reach the goal of Cartwright and Mackenzie. We might go further and give him credit for having used these words, and I will put them into his mouth if he does not object: At the rate of a reduction of li per cent in fifteen years, it would take the Liberal party 359 years to reach the goal Cartwright and Mackenzie aimed at, namely, free trade as they have it in England. There were one or two other observations made by the hon. member that I shall perhaps take the liberty of referring to a little later on.
I now pass to the consideration of the Budget itself. May I join with those who have preceded me in offering to the hon. Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) my humble congratulations on the resolute and fearless way in which he has not only dealt with the financial position in which this country finds itself at the conclusion of the war, but has set about to find the money with which this country can discharge its obligations. I venture to say it would be difficult to find a man anywhere who would agree with his neighbour as to every feature we should find in the taxation proposals in order that Canada may discharge its obligations. Some of us, to a greater degree than others, may find some iif the obligations that we have to meet burdensome. Some men in this country looked forward to the Budget Speech of this year in the hope that the business profits' tax would be eliminated, and that there would be substituted for it an income tax that would treat all types of income, whether earned or unearned, on an equal basis. Those of us who looked forward to that, however, were disappointed, but we accept the situation. We realize, as has been already stated on the floor of this House, that the Finance Minister was face to face perhaps with the most difficult situation that any Finance Minister in the history of this country has ever been called on to face, notwithstanding the problems his predecessor had to meet in financing the war. Having passed out of the war period, and being brought face to face with what we are pleased to term the reconstruction period, being called upon to develop a system of finance that would take care of the tremendous obligations we are carrying, we must all admit that the present Minister of Finance had to face a very grave responsibility .and very great difficulties indeed, and it would be more than human to expect that he should develop a system of taxation or deliver a Budget Speech that would meet with universal approval on
either side of this House or by the people of the country generally.
There are just one or two points I would like to refer to briefly in connection with the taxation proposals. With regard to what is termed the luxury tax, I believe that the Finance Minister would be well advised, when these resolutions go into committee, to consider these two points: First, eliminating from the application of the luxury tax some of the articles that are now taxed. There are articles of consumption such, for instance, as dried fruits, canned fruits, in fact, canned goods of all kinds, that might perhaps in the strict sense of the term be called luxuries, but which in many parts of the country to-day are absolute necessities and cannot properly be treated as luxuries. Therefore, they should not come under the incidence of a luxury tax. That, however, is only my own personal view.
There is another thought, and that is that the price limit beyond which the luxury tax starts might be raised. I merely offer that as a suggestion. We must not lose sight of the fact that the general use of goods that four or five years ago may have been looked upon as luxuries, make them absolute necessities to-day, and the fax on these goods therefore could not ibe avoided by any class of people in the community.
There is one other point. In order to make a luxury tax more specifically a luxury tax, the percentage tax might be applied simply on the overplus until the price of the article reached the point where it became a positive luxury. For example, on a $10 pair of boots, simply tax the overplus above $9, but when it comes to a pair at $12 or $15, compute, as a luxury tax on the more wealthy people of this country, the percentage on the full price of the goods. I believe these suggestions are worthy at least of some consideration when the Budget resolutions go into committee.
Turning bo the amendment of my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), and considering that amendment in the light of the declaration made by the leader of the Opposition during the speech of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to the effect that the policy of the Liberal party of this country on the tariff was embodied in the platform laid down at the Liberal convention of 1919, and considering that amendment also in the light of the declaration of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Gauthier) to the effect that the amendment and the speech introducing it was simply the expression of a personal opinion, and that any hon. member who wished to remain a member of the

Liberal party must subscribe in toto to the platform of 1919, I submit that I am not taking an unfair position when I say that the amendment evidently was not intended to be taken any too seriously. We have the declarations already cited of the hon. leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for St. Hyaeinthe, as well as vague intimations from other hon. members opposite that the platform laid down at _ the Liberal convention of 1919 was a virile thing, that it meant what it said, and that it does embody the policy of the Liberal party in this country so far as fiscal matters are concerned. We have also the speech of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), every sentence of which contained eulogies of free trade and denunciations of everything in the nature of a protective tariff,-a speech that must have caused the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) to entertain some misgivings as to his laurels and to ask himself seriously whether there was not some danger that he might be superseded as the chief denunciator of everything protective in this country. Set off against that we have the speech of the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Baldwin), stating, as the policy which lie advocated, his adherence to protection in its purest form. Everything that would tend in the slightest degree to develop the industries of the country-it mattered not whether it was a protective tariff or direct bonuses to industries which required that kind of encouragement-he defended. Then we have the speech of the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) stating that the policy of the Liberal party on fiscal matters was to be found in the record of that party from the year 1896 to the year 1911, during which time, as I have already said, the Liberal party succeeded, under the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) as Minister of Finance, in reducing the customs duties on goods coming into Canada by H per cent. Then again we have the speech of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Turgeonl, once more breathing the pure principles of free trade. And I might go on citing the declarations of other hon. members. For instance, we saw the hon. member for Lambton (Mr. Pardee), who I regret is not in his seat, treating us yesterday to an acrobatic performance, metaphorically speaking, in which he told us that when he went to the industrial city of Montreal and said there that he was' in favour of a 25 per cent tariff, with an 8 per cent excise, bringing it to a level 
17 per cent, he was only using a figure of speech. The hon. member said that he might as well have said 40 per cent or 30 per cent or 10 per cent or any other figure. Well, Mr. Speaker, all I have to say with regard to that point is that if the hon. member wanted to be consistent with his own record as a supporter of the tariff policy of the party to which he adheres, he could have quoted any figure in the world and he could have taken any position whatever. He could have put any interpretation that he desired upon his own words and have been perfectly consistent, if his statement which I have just quoted means anything at all.
Am I stating the case unfairly, Mr. Speaker, when I say that if hon. gentlemen opposite have any policy on the tariff, if they have any policy at all on fiscal matters, their varying statements are a revelation of the time-honoured policy of being all things to all men, that by all means they may deceive some people? In the application of this remark I intend to include hon. members who follow the leadership of my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar), and I make this statement for a definite reason. I agree fully with the statement of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) made to the electors of the county of Glengarry that so far as it relates to the fiscal policy of this country the platform of the Liberal party laid down at the convention of 1919 and the platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture are identically the same. In my conclusion that the hon. members who follow the leadership of the hon. member for Marquette are in the same position as those hon. gentlemen who follow the recognized leader of the Opposition, I am fortified by the interpretations placed on these platforms by the advocates of the platforms themselves. It is unnecessary that I should cite further declarations of hon. members directly opposite to justify the statements I have made. I would ask hon. members to study the actions of the hon. member for Marquette. If we go out to Western Canada where the hon. member appears before an audience of grain growers, an audience of western farmers in the city of Saskatoon, for instance, or in the city of Regina, we find that hon. gentleman sadly exhausting his vocabulary in an effort to find language with which sufficiently to denounce everything savouring of a protective tariff, and doing so in a manner that must apparently intensely please his own heart. He is a Simon Pure

free trader out there; everything in the nature of protective tariffs must be wiped out so long as the hon. member is addressing audiences of grain growers or farmers in Western Canada. But once in a while the hon. member does Eastern Canada the honour of paying it a visit. On his way across the country on one occasion he stopped off in the metropolitan city of Winnipeg, that beautiful city of the plains, where East meets West and West meets East, and where the people see something of the conditions of organized and established industry. There we find the hon. gentleman putting on the soft pedal. He deals with this question of protective tariffs in a more or less pianissimo fashion and is not so vigorous in his denunciations of protection. He says:	"What we want to do is to relieve the western farmer of the burden that is imposed upon him by the tax on agricultural implements. We are not in favour of free trade; we know there must be a tariff; but we want a moderate tariff. We don't want to be severe in either direction." The hon. gentleman proceeds further East and comes before an industrial audience in the city of Toronto, and what do we find? Why, Sir, the rabid free trader of the West has utterly disappeared. My hon. friend says there: " I am not in favour of free trade. We are not advocating the abolition of customs duties; what we want is the gradual reduction of the duty, a lessening here and a lessening there; something that will relieve the situation just a little and reduce the cost of living." You know, Mr. Speaker, if you put a man with his back up against the wall in this country in this present day of unrest, and leave him nothing else to talk about, he can always fall back on the cost of living, and the cost of living means something to every one of us. That is.the attitude of my hon. friend when speaking to an industrial audience in Toronto. He is not a free trader; no! He does not intend to abolish the tariff. No! Then we have the hon. gentleman's colleague, the hori. member for lied Deer (Mr. Clark) coming into this House and in one sentence denouncing everything in the nature of a protective tariff. He denounces anything and everything that might be regarded as a tariff in any form; and the tariff, he points out, is a system of bond slavery. Yet in the next breath the hon. gentleman says: We followed the leadership of Sir Wilfrid Laurier during the fifteen years that he was in office, and we claim to be the official legatees of the fiscal policy in existence from 1896 to 1911. And under
that fiscal 'policy, let me repeat, my hon. ' friend from Red Deer,-and I am sorry to see that he is not in his seat-acknowledges that the Liberal party reduced the tariff only one and one-half per cent in fifteen years. I do not think that after making these statements-and I challenge satisfactory contradiction of them-the House will say that 1 am unfair when I assert that if either group in the Opposition have any fiscal policy, that policy, as I stated a moment ago, is: "To be all things to all men, so that by any means we may be able to deceive the people."
But, Mr. Speaker, our fiscal policy is a serious thing, notwithstanding the liberties that those hon. gentlemen are prepared to take with it. For over forty years we have had a tariff under which the major portion of our Federal revenue has been raised, and by means of which necessary protection has been afforded to legitimate Canadian industry. As our nearest neighbour we have the greatest competitor in the world,- a country with a population twelve or thirteen times as great a-s our own, a country with almost unlimited wealth and natural resources, and with an economic and industrial system developed to the highest degree of competitive efficiency, and fostered and carried to the position that it has'attained to-day under a tariff deliberately designed to absolutely exclude from their home market anything -that enters into the nature of competitiion with established United States industries.
During the forty years, from 1879 down to the present time, that we have had our tariff, Canada has progressed in every element that tends towards national stability, national independence, and national greatness, until to-day, I submit, there is not a country under the sun that affords so great an opportunity as does Canada for the man who is willing to work. I do not say that that, condition is the result of a protective tariff. My hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) or Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) or Brome (Mr. McMaster) might say that that condition was brought about in spite of a protective tariff. But I say, without the slightest fear of successful contradiction, that the only time in that forty-year period when there was doubt in this country as to our industrial future, when men were timid about investing money, when things came to an apparent standstill, was during that period in the early nineties when hon. gentlemen opposite and their predecessors went up and down this country proclaiming the doc-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. NICHOLSON (Algoma):: I note that my hon. friends behind the member for Marquette cheer vociferously at the thought of a King-Crerar Government. But let me repeat: Should it happen by any chance that that combination should form a government in this country, I submit that it is only fair that. the leader of the Opposition, who would head that government, should say to this House and to the country just which particular class of business indicated in that list of staple commodities he intends to put out of business and which he intends to allow to continue to exist. Or let me put it in another way. Assuming that the aspirations of our friend Joseph E. Atkinson of the Toronto Star will be realized and that Liberals of the type of my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), the hon. member for Chateau-guay-Huntingdon (Mr. Robb), the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), and the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) are thrown into the discard and that the new line-up is to be based on a Crerar-King combination, will the chief executioner in that case say just where he intends to wield the axe and where it is his intention to have mercy? I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that there is nothing mysterious in regard to this; every single one of the articles that I have mentioned are articles of everyday use, necessities of life, implements and commodities necessary to production, falling absolutely within the range of the resolution of the Canadian Council of Agriculture and the united platform of the two bodies.
But to pass from that aspect of the case, and assuming that hon. gentlemen are sincere when they say that they are going to implement this platform; that they are going to have virtual free trade in this country and that it will become necessary for us to adopt some other means of providing the country's revenues, let us for a moment look at the merits of the question of free trade versus a moderate tariff-because in the final analysis that is the issue that is before this House; that is the issue that is before this country; that is the issue that the Canadian people must settle before industry will settle down as it should settle down and before this country will go forward as it should go forward in the reconstruction period that we are all talking so much about.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I ask my hon. friend a question? Will he tell us what is his conception of a moderate tariff?


Donald Nicholson: I will come to that in a moment; 1 anticipated that. I think I shall be able to satisfy my hon. friend that there is nothing at all drastic in my conception of a moderate tariff. But let me proceed. I want to make my own position clear before the House and the country. Looking at the matter from a purely selfish standpoint, if I could make myself believe that the theories of hon. gentlemen opposite, the theories preached to western grain growers by the member for Marquette and the theories preached to this House by the member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), were practical theories and would work out as they profess to believe they would work out-on selfish grounds, I say, I would be compelled to be a free trader. Why do 1 say that? Because if their theories would work out as hon. gentlemen profess to believe they would, no business in this country would profit so much by their application as the business in which I am engaged. Let me repeat that there is no business in this country that would profit so much by what my hon. friends profess to believe would happen in the event of free trade coming into existence as the lumber business, because in connection with no other product put on the market in this country does the cost of machinery, implements of production and staple commodities bear so great a relation to the total cost of the product as lumber. In no other industry in this or any other country that I know anything about is the percentage of total cost of production represented to so great a degree by the cost of machinery, implements of production and staple commodities, but. Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that, as 1 say, on selfish grounds I would be compelled to be a free trader could I bring myself to believe that the theories preached would work out in practice, I am not a free trader. I do not believe that these theories would work out. What would happen is that the manufacturers of the commodities that I purchase in Canada would be forced out of business by the unfair competition of the combines and trusts in the United States and I would then be at the mercy of those combines and trusts, as Canada has been in every single instance where we have tried that out. Let me refer to one or two. Away back in 1896 or 1897 we took the duty off coal-oil and we turned the whole trade of Canada over to the Standard Oil Company, and from that day to this the price of coal-oil has constantly been sky-rocketing. We tried the same thing in connection with bin-df r twine, and the same thing applies; every

manufacturing industry in. (Canada that was manufacturing binder twine, with the possible exception of one, was driven out of business. Barbed wire has been taking the same route. Every single Canadian manufacturer of barbed wire has had his factory doors closed, and in the past five years the price of barbed wire has increased to a greater degree than that of any other commodity that I can think of. Let me give one illustration. The price of binders and agricultural implements generally has increased by about 100 per cent in conformity with the general increase in the price of commodities of that character; while the price of barbed wire has increased 300 per cent, because it is controlled absolutely by the United States Trust.
Let me now turn to another aspect of this question of the tariff. Our free trade friends say that the tariff is responsible for the high cost of living, the general unrest and all other ills, imaginary and real, from which we seem to be suffering during the aftermath of the war. Let us examine that briefly, and in order to do so, let us consider the condition of things in the United Kingdom, ot free-trade England, as our hon friends opposite are pleased to term it. Will any hon. member say seriously that he believes the cost of living is less in the United Kingdom than it is in Canada, or that there is less unrest in the United Kingdom than there is in Canada? Why, Mr. Speaker, the cost of living in Canada, or the unrest in Canada, is a mere bagatelle in comparison with what it is in every European country, the United Kingdom included. As regards the United States, the most self-contained country in the world, a country that provides practically everything its people require, is the cost of living or the general unrest in the United States any less than it is in Canada? If we consider what has happened in the steel strike, the coal strike and the recent railway strike, every hon. member who is honest with himself and who has examined the situation, knows that the unrest in Canada is less than it is in the country to the south of us. But let us come right home and see what the effect of free trade has been on the cost of living in Canada. There is no duty on wheat; wheat can be imported into this country absolutely free of duty. Can the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) or the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), if he were in his seat, or the hon. member for Brome (Mr. MoMastex), point to any other staple commodity the price of which has advanced to as great a degree 178
as it has in the case of wheat on which there is no duty, and wheat bears the same relation to the cost of living that gold doe3 to the value of the notes that we have in circulation?
'Mr. MoM'AlSTER:	Is the hon. member
not aware that as Canada has a large exportable surplus of wheat, the tariff never can and never has had anything to do with the price of wheat in Canada?


Donald Nicholson: I accept
absolutely my hon. friend's statement and as the quantity of the general commodities produced throughout the world and particularly in the United States is so much greater than the quantity of the same commodities produced in Canada, the quantity of commodities produced in Canada has very little to do with the high cost of living generally. But let us take meats, butter, milk, vegetables, all of those things which are produced in. Canada and upon which we pay no duty, the things that enter into the cost of living. The cost of these commodities to the consumer is regulated by the cost to the producer, and to take specific articles, the price paid to the farmer regulates the price paid to the consumer, notwithstanding the fantastic imagery of the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret;, who undertook to trace that illustripus egg from its nest away back in the farmer's barnyard on to his kitchen table. But my free trader friends will say: .Here is where we have you up a tree; you just take off the tariff, and you will see the cost of production coming down -so fast that you will not be able to change your money into small coin fast enough to keep pace with the decline. Just let us examine that statement from the free trader's standpoint. Will taking off the duty on implements of production, for instance, mean a reduction in production costs as my hon. friends contend it will? We shall call, as our first witness in this case, not a producer, not an advocate of high or low or moderate tariff, but an out-and-out free trader in the person of the present Premier of Ontario, the Hon. E. C. Drury, who came before a committee of this House as the accredited representative of the United Farmers of Ontario and gave evidence under oath as to the cost of producing foodstuffs in this country. Mr. Drury did not come at the request of the Parliamentary committee; he was sent by the United Farmers of Ontario as their expert witness. After going over the whole question in detail, pointing out just the effect that one item had



on another, and assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Canadian manufacturer added the full amount of the tariff plus the cost of production and a reasonable profit to his sale price, the Hon. Mt. Drury stated under oath that the effect of the tariff on implements of production would mean an increase of four-fifths of one per cent in the cost of producing foodstuffs on Ontario farms. Mr. Drury further pointed out to that Parliamentary committee that, if you took clothing, boots and shoes, cooking utensils, every article that comes into daily use in an average Ontario household, and again assuming that the Canadian producer or manufacturer as the case may be, added the full amount of the tariff, plus the cost of production and a reasonable profit, the gross effect of that on the cost of producing foodstuffs on an Ontario farm would be 24 per cent. If hon. gentlemen want to look that matter up for themselves, they will find it on pages 197 and 198 of the evidence taken before the Cost of Living Committee just about one year ago.
Let us carry this a step further. There also came before that committee a representative of the Saskatchewan Grain Growers, in the person of Mr. Hugh Thompson, and again under oath that gentleman gave the Parliamentary Committee figures to show that, again assuming that the Canadian manufacturer added the full amount of duty plus the cost of production and a reasonable profit to the sale price, the effect of that on the production of wheat in the province of Saskatchewan would be, on the basis of a ten-year period of depreciation, .9 of 1 per cent, and if you base your calculation on a five-year period of depreciation, the effect would be 1.8 per cent. On the .basis of the prices prevailing in 1919, the cost per bushel would be about .2 or .3 of one per cent. I need not say that no hon. member will contend for a moment that the assumption on which these figures are based bears any relation to what actually takes place. No hon. member will contend that the producer of any class of goods in this country adds the full amount of the tariff to the cost of production, plus a reasonable profit. Every man who knows anything about business and who buys these commodities-and I think I buy as many of them as the average man-knows that competition regulates the price of every single one of these articles in this country.
The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) asked me what my interpretation of a moderate tariff was. In the first place,

I	am not, and never have been, a high tariff man. II am not supporting a high tariff to-day. There has been in existence in this country during the past year the lowest tariff that Canada has had for forty years, and there is coming into existence under the Budget that has just been brought down a still lower tariff-a. tariff 34 to 4 per cent lower than the tariff in existence during the whole period ifrom 1896 to 1911, a tariff between 3 and 4 per cent lower than would have come into existence under the reciprocity agreement negotiated by my hon. friend the member for IShelburoe and Queen's. I say .this with regard to my position on the tariff: I believe we must have a tariff for revenue. I believe we must have a tariff just high enough, and no higher than is sufficient to protect legitimate Canadian industry against unfair competition and dumping by the highly specialized combines in -the United 'States and Germany and against the cheap labour of Asia and South Africa. I -say further, if I had the privilege of being a member of this House when any Government brought in a tariff that -bore any relation to what economists would call a high tariff, I would vote against it. Let me go a -step further. I agree absolutely with the hon. member for Stan-stead (Mr. Baldwin) that what this country needs -above all other things is -the development of all our natural resources. What this country needs is stability in industry, and the development of her natural res-sources, and if I may be permitted to digress for a moment I should like to refer particularly to one natural resource, namely, iron. Beginning in 1904-I speak subject to correction as to the date-we began a system of business on iron and steel, and by the payment of a comparatively small sum of money in relation to the value of the industry established we brought into existence the iron and steel industry in this country. That meant that when we came face to -face with the war period, we were in a position not only to furnish munitions for our own army, the Mother Country and our Allies, but also to weather the industrial storm that would otherwise have broken over this country and which w'ould have made it exceedingly difficult for us to do our part in the war. By the application of a similar policy to the great iron beds in Northern Quebec and Northern Ontario, II claim that we would bring into existence in this country a pig-iron industry that would furnish raw material for every blast furnace in Canada and produce a large exportable

surplus that would help to pay our national obligations.
Reverting for one moment to the effect of free trade on the cost of living, free traders are wont continually to refer to free trade England, so I may be pardoned if I make a reference to what is actually taking place and has taken place in free trade England. During the months, I think, of August, September and October, 1919, the British Government paid out over $6,000,000 a week in unemployment gratuities, while at the same time the United States Steel Corporation sold under the very nose of the British manufacturers to British buyers
100,000	tons of steel rails at prices $12.50 to $15 more than steel rails were being sold for in the United States and Canada. Let me give one other illustration. During the same year, 1919, the British Government paid in bonuses or bounties to British millers or purchasers of wheat $360,000,000 in an effort to bring down the cost of living. Let us see how successful they have been. I have here a despatch to The Toronto Globe from England dated May 20, 1920, wherein I find the following statement "The High Cost of Living Baffles Labour Leaders." The article goes on to say:
The Labour party is calling another conference to study the question of prices, and a new campaign against profiteering is promised. The Governmental machinery erected to stop profiteering was a lamentable failure, and little hope is expressed that any fresh legislation will be more successful in " squaring the vicious circle."
It is said that the Labour leaders who have been going into details of a plan for forcing down prices during the last few days have been forced to admit that the problem is a much more difficult one than they had expected, and their hopes of grappling with it successfully are marred by the fact that the trade unions generally are now starting a fresh series of wage demands, which will make the position worse than ever.
Not long ago the Labour leaders had a cut-and-dried scheme for dealing with high prices, but they are now forced to admit that this stands in need of modification, in the light of fresh facts that have come under their notice.
May I now refer for a moment to what is being done by free 'trade England to protect her industries. I have here a clipping from a newspaper, of which unfortunately I neglected to note the name and date, but I give the House my word that the quotation is just exactly as I clipped it from a despatch from England:
Under regulations at present in force the Government takes the power to exclude articles from foreign countries, wherever their price is shown to be lower than that of the home product. All the British producer has to do to semi
Sure protection absolute for his product is to raise the price of his goods a little higher than his foreign competitor, when the Government steps in and prohibits the importation of the article desired to be excluded.
That is one of the methods followed by free trade England to protect her industries.
I want to refer to one or two other matters that seem to me to be of vital importance to this country at the present moment. We hear a great deal about unrest throughout this country and a great deal about the high cost of living and all that sort of thing. My judgment, as I stated in the House last year, is that hon. members of this House and men in public and business life in this country are very largely responsible for some of the unrest that now prevails. Statements are made without any apparent appreciation of the effect they will have on the public mind, simply for the purpose, apparently, of gaining some political advantage. Let me give one illustration. The hon. member for Lambton (Mr. Pardee), who I regret is not now in his place, speaking in this House yesterday, in the absence of logic with which to reinforce the argument he was endeavouring to make, and in an apparent effort to draw some applause from the hon. gentlemen sitting around him, took his customary fling at the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt). Now I hold no brief for the hon. member for Brantford. He is perfectly able to take care of himself, but I say this, and I believe that if the hon. member for Lambton was brought face to face with his subject he would admit I am right, that the hon. member for Brantford is just as decent, just as honest, and just as ready to play the game, as the hon. member for Lambton. There is one other hon. member of this House to whom I wish to refer and I regret that he is not now in his place. I am speaking of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Grerar). In my judgment, Mr. Speaker, the position in which that hon. gentleman finds himself to-day is the most wholly indefensible-I use that word with no unkind implication-of that of any public man in the history of this country with whom -it has ever been-I was just about to say my privilege, but I am afraid I cannot use that word-with whom, let me say instead, it has been my misfortune to come in contact. Knowing the hon. member for Marquette as I do, and knowing his kindness of heart, I cannot understand how he has allowed himself to take the position which he has taken from one end

of the country to the other with regard .to men who- are engaged in .practically identical business with his own. The hon. member is the head of the largest commercial organization in this country, the greatest combine that has ever been brought into existence in Canada, without a single exception. When the United States courts undertook to unscramble what they termed the omelette of the United States meat packers they had a child's job compared to what any one would have if he undertook to unscramble the omelette of the combine brought into existence by my hon. friend from Marquette and his associates. I do not iwish to be 'misunderstood, Mr. Speaker. Those gentlemen had a legitimate right to bring this organization into existence, and so far as I am able to learn, they are conducting their affairs on sound and strictly business principles. No one therefore has any right to find fault with them. But let us consider the situation. Here is the head of this great commercial organization doing business which, according to the sworn statement of the secretary or general manager of the company-I forget which-made before a committee of this House, amounted to almost $200,000,000 in one year, and doing it at a profit that makes profits of the Dominion Textile Company or the Patent Manufacturing Company look like the proverbial two cents. Yet 'the head of this organization and his associates can go up and down the country denouncing other business men who are endeavouring to build up industries of a like character in this country and describing them as grafters, profiteers, and .men who altogether are exercising an utterly immoral influence not only on the business but on 'the .political Life of the country. I repeat, Sir, that the position of the hon. member and his associates is absolutely indefensible, and is the most unfortunate position which I have ever witnessed on the part of any group ; of business, men in this country. No one has any reason to question the right of these gentlemen to do what they are doing in a business way; neither have they the right, Mr. Speaker, to cast aspersions on other business men who are conducting their business with equal honesty and integrity and are making an honest effort to be of service to their country. Hon. members who sit behind the hon. member for Marquette are wont to refer to the milling industries, to Ogilvie's, the Lake of the Woods Milling Company, the Western Canada Flour Mills Company, the Maple Leaf Milling Com-
pany, and all these organizations as grafters on the body politic .and parasites that are eating out the vitals of the Canadian people. But what do we find? The four largest milling companies of Canada conducted their business in the year, 1918, on a margin of profit of less than 11 cents per barrel of flour, while the commercial organization with which my hon. friends are connected handled a very large part of that flour and took as their profit 85 to 90 cents a barrel. One might go through the whole range of commodities, Mr. Speaker. Sir Joseph Flavelle has been held up to this House by hon. members as the embodiment of everything that is iniquitous.


Mr. CANNON:: Hear, hear.


Donald Nicholson: My hon.
friend says "Hear, hear." Well, the business with which Sir Joseph Flavelle is associated conducted its operations in 1919 on a margin of seven-tenths of one per cent; and the commercial organization with which my hon. friends are associated handled a lot of these products and did it on a margin of 11 per cent. Let me repeat, Mr. Speaker, that I am finding no fault with these hon. gentlemen. They are conducting a legitimate business. They have developed their business along sound economic lines and they deserve all credit for the manner in which they carry on their affairs. But let me also emphasize again the fact that they have no right to travel up .and down the country casting aspersions on other business men who are endeavouring to do business along exactly the same lines.
Now, I want to refer to one other matter. Something has been said from time to time in this debate with regard to by-elections that have taken place in this country, and the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), who I am sorry is not here, said that he rejoiced in the development of the spirit that resulted in the return of the hon. member for Tiniiskaming (Mr. McDonald) as an evidence of what was taking place in the country. Well, let me say that when my hon. friend's leader, the member for Marquette, entrusted the campaign in Tim-iskaming to Mrs. Rose Henderson, of Montreal he took good care to see that even his apparent desire to stir up class prejudice in this country would not be frustrated. ' Any one who went through the Timiskaming campaign and knew anything about it, and also knew something of the ideals that were put before the people of the district of Timiskaming, will believe with me that the hon. member for Red

Deer, if he values at all highly the ideals which he frequently expresses in this House, was not aware of what took place in that district when he made the statement that he rejoiced in the development of the spirit manifested in the return of the hon. member for Timiskaming. I say this, Mr. Speaker, and I say it without the slightest fear of satisfactory contradiction, and with due regard for my responsibility as a member of this Parliament, that hon. gentlemen opposite went the length of associating themselves with an organization, the professed object of which is to destroy even this institution itself and all other forms of organized governments in this and other countries.


Lucien Cannon: Hear, hear.


George Brecken Nicholson: Do I hear some hon. member say, "Hear, hear?"


Lucien Cannon: Yes.


George Brecken Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I state my position in regard to that question very emphatically and I have nothing to take back, and before I sit down I think I shall be able to satisfy the House that my position is absolutely correct. I say that hon. gentlemen entrusted the conduct of the campaign to Mistress Rose Henderson, of Montreal. Now, who is Mistress Rose Henderson?


Mr. McMASTER:: A very estimable
lady.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: He is not much of a judge.


Donald Nicholson: Does my
hon. friend agree with the ideals that Mistress Henderson preaches?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Not with all of them. Nevertheless she is a most estimable lady.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Donald Nicholson: In 1919,
Mr. Speaker, a definite, well-planned and carefully worked out scheme was put into operation in the city of Winnipeg to destroy civil government in that city and in the province of Manitoba as a preliminary to destroying civil government all over this country. During that period Mistress Rose Henderson directed to the leader of the movement in the city of Winnipeg a letter - couched in these terms:
I am enclosing herewith a copy of the constitution of Soviets approved by I.enine and Trotsky. You can trust me implicitly, because you know that I was an advanced Socialist before I became a Bolshevist.
That was the ideal that Mrs. Rose Henderson held out before the people of the district of Timiskaming, and it was the organization known in this country as the One Big Union, whose principles she espouses, which supported the candidature of the hon. member for Timiskaming. I know that he is not a member of the One Big Union, and I say here again, with, I think, a full appreciation of my responsibility as a member of this House, that I do not believe the hon. member for Timiskaming himself appreciated the kind of campaign that was carried on to return him to this House. That is my opinion with regard to the hon. member. But I say that the One Big Union was the organization behind the campaign that elected him to this House, and that the ideals of that Union were preached in every mining camp in that constituency. And let me repeat, now that the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) is in his seat, that when the time comes that hon. members professing the ideals of the hon. member for Marquette and his associates find it necessary to make use of the One Big Union in order to propagate their campaign of class hatred in this country, they have reached a fairly desperate condition.
In order that the House may know something about the ideals of the One Big Union-because I believe it is my duty to put this information before the House and the country-let me read the declaration of the chief organizer of the One Big Union, Mr. Fred G. Biedenkapp. I want the House to note the name B-i-e-d-e-n-k-a-p-p. The statement I am about to read is taken from the Chicago Times and is as follows:
Fred G. Biedenkapp, General Organizer ol the One Big Union, says the true communist and labour leader rejoices more over one unsuccessful strike than over ten strikes that succeed. What the O.B.U., and smaller organizations aim to create is not asking better working conditions for the average man but worse conditions. The workingman, or organization of workingmen, who strikes for higher wages and gets them, or for better working conditions and fewer hours of labour, and gets them, is not the material from which revolutionists are made. He is likely to be contented and take a conservative so-called sane view of a world in which the conditions have been easier and better for him. On the other hand, the striker, or group of strikers, who fails, are likely to be more embittered against the employers, the whole employing class and society generally and after repeated failures of this kind they will come to the conclusion that striking and voting are alike useless to improve the workingmen's lot, and they will listen to the Red who talks intelligently of direct action and the overthrow of society and

forms of Government as at present constituted. We have already two million workers, members of the O.B.U., and our numbers continue to grow as one unsuccessful strike follows another. Therefore, we, of the new vision, encourage strikes not because we desire to better the workingman's conditions but in order that they may fail-
Let me say right here, Mr. Speaker, that every regularly constituted body of organized labour in this country knows that the aim of the One Big Union is not to better the conditions of the workingmen; its aim is to destroy organized labour. Why? Because the men directing the One Big Union know that they cannot destroy organized society and organized forms of government as we now have them so long as legitimate organized labour continues to exist. I will go one step further, because I want to make my position absolutely clear. I assert that the One Big Union, whose principles I have just read, was the organization behind the election of the hon. member for Timis-kaming, who sits behind the hon. member for Marquette, and who is one of the latter's loyal supporters in this House.
The headquarters of the Independent Labour party in the town of Cobalt are in the One Big Union hall, because the organization of the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers has absolutely ceased to exist as an organized entity in the town of Cobalt, or in any other mining town in Northern Ontario, except one small branch in South Porcupine. As I say, the headquarters of the Independent Labour party, associated with the United Farmers of Ontario, are in the One Big Union hall. At the present time a suit is pending in the Ontario courts for possession of that particular property. The parties to that suit are, on the one hand, H. J. Everett, an officer of the Independent Labour party, and, on the other hand, an executive officer of the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, Patrick James Redmond, and Charles H. Moyer, the president of the union. Why is that suit pending? Because an effort has been made to take the physical property of the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers and to transfer it to the One Big Union organization, brought into this country to destroy legitimate organized labour. And let me repeat, that when hon. members find it necessary in their efforts to create class prejudice in this country to use an organization such as the One Big Union, in my opinion they have gone to pretty desperate lengths.
A few nights ago the hon. member for Red Deer said that 60,000 sons of Canada were
Mr. [Nicholson.!
sleeping in France and Flanders, and that they had died to release Canada from economic bondage. I know perfectly well that
60,000	of our sons are sleeping in France and Flanders, and that undoubtedly they died to save Canada.
But if my hon. friend from Red Deer were in the House to-night I would like to ask him this Question:	Does he think that
when his gallant boy stood beside my boy in the trenches in France and Flanders holding back the German line in those awful hours in 1918 when his heart strings and my heart strings were strained to the breaking point in the anxiety that the German forces would break through to the channel ports or take Paris, does he think that those boys had before their eyes the ideals of class prejudice and suspicion that he and his colleagues are preaching up and down the length of this country to-day? Mr. Speaker, if all the sacrifices of that awfhl war is for no other purpose than to bring about the condition suggested then I say that it is in the Providence of God, that those boys were taken to their rest before they were forced to live to see the awful futility of all that sacrifice. I say this further, Mr. Speaker, hon. gentlemen may say what they will, they may preach their doctrine as long as they wish, but here is one man that will fight tire hydraheaded monster of class prejudice and Bolshevism as long as the breath remains in his body.


Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Mont-morency):: Mr. Speaker, before I begin the few remarks I wish to utter to-night I think it would be appropriate for a moment or two to join issue with my hon. friend (Mr. Nicholson, Algoma), who has just resumed his seat with respect to certain assertions which he made. The hon. gentleman has informed us that he sees in the near future a lowering of the tariff to a greater extent than has taken place previously in the last forty years. Well, Mr. Speaker, like St. Thomas of old, I will wait and see before I accept the hon. gentleman's prediction in that regard.
The hon. gentleman has stated that the Grain Growers' Association is an organization that has been formed for the purpose of protecting its own interests. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that other associations are taking just as active a part in public affairs as the one to which he has alluded, the efforts of which may help to counterbalance whatever effects the hon. gentleman fears the Grain Growers Association mav produce. I refer particularly to an association to which reference was made

in the Montreal Gazette of 13th May last, as follows:
Million Dollar Fund for C.M.A.
Time to slam back at interests unfriendly to manufacturers.
So it would seem that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association is trying at the present time to raise a fund in order to protect its own interests against those of the rest of the community. Further, if we look at the end of the report to which the headings I have quoted relate we will see who are the members of the Manufacturers' Association. We shall see in that list some gentlemen who are the greatest supporters of the present Government and their policy. We see, for instance, Colonel Grant Mor-den, Sir James McKechnie, J. W. Norcross, W. F. Foster, B. W. Coughlin, Lieutenant-Colonel Sadler, and E. Bristol, M.P. In view of thgse facts I would ask my hon. friend whether the Government are likely t<f reduce the tariff to a greater extent than has been witnessed in the past when the association referred to is prepared to spend an enormous sum of money for organization purposes.
Another point to which the hon. gentleman alluded was that of the One Big Union. I do not know much of that body and what we hear of it has come to our notice recently, but if it is spoken of as likely to develop socialism in this country, let me tell the hon. gentleman that the policy of the Government is developing another kind of socialism in the shape of the nationalization of all the railways in Canada that they can lay their hands on.
My hon. friend stated that in the years which preceded the advent of the Liberal party to power in 1896 they advocated a policy of free trade, and that as a consequence there was great unrest in the country. The hon. gentleman stated that for forty years previous to that time there had been great progress in industry and in manufactures in Canada and that this was due to the National Policy adopted in 1878. As to that, one thing I can certainly affirm. It is that if industrial development in Canada failed to keep pace with the times it was not due to any policy propounded by the Liberal party, but was due-and nobody can deny it

to the toad administration of the Conservative Government which preceded the advent of the Liberal party to power in 1896. So much dissatisfaction was there with that administration that the lower tariff policy propounded toy the Liberals carried the country in 1896 by a great majority.
My hon. friend has asserted that when the Liberals came into power they made but a slight tariff reduction, and that in the course of fifteen years the reductions only amounted to one and a half per cent. Well, to reduce the tariff at all was a step in the right direction. But the public must have been satisfied with what was done along that line, because when the Liberal Government proposed to go further in 1911, who asked them to move slowly and not go too fast? Who raised the slogan at that time throughout the country, "Let well enough alone?" It was the party of hon. gentlemen opposite.
My hon. friend also says that the policy of the Liberal party on the tariff issue has been one of vote catching and deception. That, Mr. Speaker, has not been the policy of the Liberal party in the years that have passed. Our record is exposed to view for all to see. It is a splendid record and one of which the Liberal party may well be proud. I can assure my hon. friend that if there was a policy of vote catching and deception adopted* by anybody it was adopted by hon. gentlemen opposite. It was, to a large extent, by means of such a policy that they carried the country in 1911. The same policy was followed by them in 1917, and as a result they are in office today. What did they do in 1911? In the province of Ontario they raised the cry that the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier was too much of a Koman Catholic and a Frenchman, whereas in the province of Quebec they went round saying he was too much of an Imperialist. At that time also the Conservatives made an alliance with the Nationalists; they preached a certain policy in Quebec, and they advocated an entirely different policy in Ontario. Was not that in very truth a policy of vote catching and deception?
I wish now to make a few remarks with regard to the subject particularly under discussion, the Budget.
When the Minister of Finance presented his Budget to the House the other day he looked to me like a person who was very much worried; as a man would look who had taken charge cf a beautiful estate that had just been ransajcked by robbers or struck by a tornado. A frenzied and feverish attempt is made to tax every possible source of wealth in a supreme effort to make both ends meet and to repair the damages made by the storm. The Budget, Mr. Speaker, when we look at it, seems to me to be something conceived on the impulse of the moment, not thoroughly thought out as to

detail, its practicability, or its ultimate effect. The Budget is open to serious objection ; in many ways it will increase the cost of living at a time when every person should be trying to reduce it. There is one thing that the Government seems to forget: that the struggle to obtain an adequate share of the necessities of life, even in this country, is becoming, in the case of a vast number of people, a tragedy more than anything else; and it seems to me that the new taxation will increase the struggle rather than diminish it. The Government .seem to have taken as their maxim: "We will tax luxuries in order to check extravagance." That might be a laudable object except for the fact that the only authority the Government have for imposing taxation at all requires them to assess the burden equally upon the whole body of taxpayers and for the exclusive purpose of raising the necessary revenue to carry on the country's affairs. The people, I believe, will resent keenly their being taxed into submission to whatever vhe party in office thinks they should do or should buy, or can afford to pay, and so on.
There are anomalies in the Budget. A suit of clothes is taxed1 at the rate of 10 per cent if it costs $45 or over. Well, I would ask any lion, gentleman if to-day any person can get a decent suit of clothes for $45? It is in very many instances good policy and economy to buy the best clothes, for they last longer. But in view of the new taxation proposals, how many people will be able to afford to do that? Not many. The same thing applies to shoes and other articles which everybody must buy, which nobody can do without. As was said last night by the member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) the tax cn patent medicine is one which will surely bear heavily on the great masses of the people, because they rely upon these medicines, having not the means to consult a physician or doctor. I. am afraid that in many instances the people will have tc. do without these medicines. Mr. Speaker, calling a tax ''luxury tax" and applying it to staple articles of everyday necessity on the basis of certain prices -the lowest prices at which such articles, of fair quality, can be bought-is simply a bit of camouflage. That is what is involved in this feature of the Budget proposals.
There are other anomalies, Mr. Speaker, in the taxation proposals of the Finance Minister. For instance, pianos, which are purchased chiefly by rich people, are taxed
fMr. Casgrain.]
at 10 per cent, while phonographs, which are commonly used by people of smaller means, are subjected to a tax twice as large. Different opinions have been expressed as to the probable result of the new taxation. The majority of people see in it great disadvantage, increase of cost in operation and a source of trouble to all traders. The method of collecting the taxes on retail transactions is objectionable. It makes the retail merchant an involuntary tax collector and adds to the cost of carrying on his business. It leaves the door open to unscrupulous dealers to ignore the tax or to decline to collect it and make dishonest returns, and it also invites certain non-bona fide dealers to sell at supposedly reduced prices articles of inferior quality, -and in the end it will be the consumer who will once more 'have to pay and bear the burden.
According to the Minister of Finance, our own income tax has not been well applied; the machinery for its collection is imperfect. Well, I Submit with all due .respect that the Minister of Finance should have perfected the machinery for collecting the income tax and should have tried to collect as much under it as possible without resorting to the great majority of the taxes which he has put on to-day and which certainly will bear heavily on the people.
While speaking of income tax, I should like to direct the attention of the minister and of the House generally to another feature of the matter. Why not have the income tax returns made public? Everybody in this country knows what any citizen pays to the municipality, to the school commission, to other public institutions, for taxes; why not make the same thing apply to federal income taxation? Why not make it public that Mr. So-and-so pays $200, $300, $1,000 or $2,000 by way of income tax, in order that the people may know who have made the big money and who ought to be made to pay more?
The country is facing very serious conditions to-day. Canada, like many other countries, is suffering from the effects of post-bellum conditions, although not so acutely as some other countries. In Canada, as in other places-in some instances I would say that the condition is worse in Canada than elsewhere-there has been developing a certain disease which we may call acute profiteering. The amount of wealth in this country has not, I am sure, increased very much during the last decade, but the number of millionaires, Mrt Speaker, as you well know, has increased im-

mensely. The unrest throughout Canada is more pronounced on account oi the increased number of millionaires and the amount of wealth that has been concentrated in the hands of few, while other people who are not mating enough to support themselves find the conditions of living absolutely hard to bear.
Among the new taxes brought down by the Minister of Finance I would like to have seen a tax on land values. Everybody will admit that during the war vacant lands escaped taxation much more than anything else. By the taxing of vacant lands, the country would secure a large income and, in my opinion, the cost of living would be reduced by more adequate facilities being given for building houses, thus relieving housing conditions in different parts of Canada.
I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance to the question of earned and unearned incomes. The income tax, as it stands at present, ought to be modified in such a way that an income, based on sound securities such as real estate, from which the owner will derive great benefit all his life and from which the people who come after him will have an opportunity of being able to live without working, ought to be taxed much higher than an income such as that of a professional man, an industrial expert, an engineer, or any other salaried individual, because that income ceases with the death of the one who earns it; and on account of having to pay the enormous taxes that at present fall on such incomes, a man of this class runs the risk of 'having no capital at all at the time of his death. The man who has a steady income derived from bonds and real estate and who will be able to leave that real estate and those securities to the people who come after him ought to be taxed twice as much as the salaried man. In England, this is done, and it would be well for the Minister of Finance to bear this in mind, and when we get into committee on the resolution, I hope this suggestion will be adopted as part of the legislation.
The Minister of Finance has seen fit to retain for another year the excess business profits tax. I do not agree with him in that regard. He cited a number of reasons why this tax should be abolished, and yet he has retained it. The excess business profits tax has given as much as we can expect from it, because people have got on to it and companies have devised ways and means of hiding their income by expending it in many ways such as advertising or different kinds of improvements, thus making it, in certain cases, impossible for the Government to reach the big institution which make such huge profits.
I desire to take objection to the removal of the tax of 15 per cent on films which are exhibited in moving picture houses. Like most hon. members, I am an amateur at moving picture shows; but I contend that this tax should have been retained for this year, and there is no good reason for its removal. The Minister of Finance gave as a reason for the removal of (this tax the statement that it was bearing 'heavily upon some small institutions, making them pay about 6 or 7 per cent of itheir receipts, whereas big moving picture houses w'ere paying one or two per cent. I have nothing to say against moving picture houses; but I have not yet seen, in any of these theatres, any picture shown that did not in a certain way reflect on morality or come very near to immorality. In many cases, a picture invites luxurious habits and extravagance in expenditure, and this Budget is especially devised to prevent luxury and extravagant expenditure, to curb all these evils. Another point I want to make against these moving picture institutions is that they are responsible, in Montreal, Quebec and other large cities for a great deal of evil that is being committed. In many cases a moving picture show is a common rendezvous for a certain class of people who want to hide themselves. The other day a Montreal judge told me that he bad to pass upon a case of separation, and what happened? The beginning of the case was in a moving picture house. The pictures that are exhibited are suggestive, and in some cases they lead to very bad results. They are an invitation to the people of the poorer classes to revolt, and they bring disorder in the country. Thank 'God, there is not a moving picture show in any town or village in my constituency, and I hope there will not be any for a long time.
I should like to make a few remarks in regard to the tariff, to which a number of hon. gentlemen have referred in this debate. For a long time every person who bestows any thought on our national life has been of the opinion that a change ought to be made in the tariff. Although the Minister of Finance has given us a promise and a declaration of principle as to the commission that is to investigate what the future tariff should be, I am sorry to say that I cannot put much stock in what he has said to us; and for this rea-

importance of these things, he said, that a country could make substantial progress; and let me say, Sir, that it was by a full recognition of the principles so well laid down by His Royal Highness that Canada made such great Strides during the fifteen years of the late Liberal administration.


Mr. J. D. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):: In common with other hon. members who have spoken, I wish to congratulate the Minister of Finance on the comprehensive and straightforward statement which he has given to the House in regard to our liabilities, and also on the courage which he has displayed in going after sufficient revenue to take care of our responsibilities without resorting 'to further borrowing. I do not intend to take up a great deal of the time of the House, but whatever time I do spend in addressing hon. members I shall devote to a discussion of tariff matters alone. I believe that the tariff is to be the one feature of the next election, and I think it is an important subject at the present moment. Before dealing with this subject, however, I want to refer to a statement made by the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Kennedy) a few days ago. I am sorry that that hon. gentleman is not in his seat, but I observe that the hon. member for Kent (Mr. McCoig) is present, and the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee), who was here a moment ago is, I regret, absent for the moment. These three hon. gentlemen appear to me to be a sort of co-operative triumvirate from the western part of the province of Ontario. The hon. member for North Essex a few days ago made an attack on the dry dock proposition in the city of St. John, and I must say that he goes a long way from home to make his attack. The hon. member for Kent makes a vicious onslaught on the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) regarding Massey-Harris and the International Harvester Company, also going far afield; while the other member of the triumvirate attacks the automobile industry. It is interesting to note that there is not an automobile industry in that hon. gentleman's riding, but there is such an industry in the riding of the hon. member for Kent and in the riding of the hon. member for North Essex. He makes his attack upon something that is not a home industry; he takes good care to see to that. Now, I desire to read a statement made by the hon. member for North Essex the other day in his speech. It will be found at page 2730 of unrevised Hansard;

There seems to be an organized plan to raid the public treasury. Now, Canada has done pretty well for the shipbuilding industry, at all events so far as helping them to get started is concerned. X have here a prospectus issued by a bond house dealing with the St. John Dry-dock and Shipbuilding Company, Limited, showing that the Government of Canada have agreed under certain conditions to assist this company to the extent of $247,500 per annum for a period of thirty-five years.
That is going a long way from home to make an attack. I might say, Sir, that this dry dock proposition was inaugurated by a measure passed through this House, and I may read a couple of clauses from the Act incorporating the company. I happen to know something about the establishment of dry docks because I come from ai partly maritime county where we have a dry dock and where, when the Welland Canal is completed, there is likely to be necessity for another dry dock to take care of the larger boats; and when I saw the statement of the hon. member I felt pretty sure that he had either been very much mistaken or that he was misleading the House or trying-to use a vernacular expression-to put something over. Let me read' a couple of clauses from the Act:
The Governor in Council may, as an aid to the construction of any dry dock, authorize the payment out of any unappropriated money forming part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada of a subsidy, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, to any incorporated company, approved by the Governor in Council, as having the ability to perform the work, which shall enter into an agreement with His Majesty to construct a dry dock under the provisions of this Act, with all necessary equipment, machinery and plant, for the reception and repairing of vessels.
No such aid shall be granted unless the Governor in Council is satisfied, upon a report of the minister, based upon a report of the Chief Engineer of the Department of Public Works,-
Hon. gentlemen opposite seem to be irritated by It'his expression f' Govternor in Council "; we are always hearing something about it, and so on. This dry dock company, under this law, was established as a public work, and it will be interesting to hon. members to know that the measure establishing it was passed in the year 1910 under the Laurier Government. Hon. members will also see that there were Orders in Council then as well as now, and we are just carrying out the law that was made by the friends of hon. gentlemen opposite. I do not say that the law is a bad one. I think it is good, and those hon. gentlemen are entitled to credit for putting it on the statute book. But I do not see any reason why my hon. friend should have made the

attack which he made, especially when this law was established by his own party. Now the hon. member for Lambton made an attack upon the automobile industry. I do not know that it is my business to defend that particular industry, Mr. Speaker. If there is any one who should defend the automobile industry it would be the hon. member for Kent, in whose city there is a large automobile industry, and the hon. member for North Essex. But they allowed the hon. member for Lambton to come forward and attack this industry by a supposititious case that has no application whatever and no truth at all. That hon. gentleman gives us a supposititious case of an automobile that coat a thousand dollars. Why did not the hon. gentleman get some information from the hon. mem-fer for North Essex or the hon. member for Kent as to the automobile industry if he did not know anything about it? He could have gotten that information if he had sought it.
He could have given it to the House instead of putting on Hansard the statement he did. I wish to correct that statement and to put on Hansard accurate information regarding the automobile industry. I may say for the particular benefit of my hon. friend from Victoria and Carleton (N. B.) (Mr. Caldwell) and other hon. gentlemen who talk about the Ford automobile, that the information I am about to furnish is in reference to that particular car, so that he and his friends may not in future make the same error that they are making now. My figures are based upon prices in effect on the 4th of this month. The hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) told us that any change in price did not amount to a hill of beans, that it was just taking a shirt and collar or a petticoat off some one, so it cannot very much affect my figures.
The Canadian price of the Ford touring car, as far as the Ford Company is concerned-because they have nothing to do with the inland revenue tax that is collected on sales-is $740; the United States price is $575, a difference of $165, or 28 per cent. Now, what I am about to state is not generally known in this country, and although I am not giving this information on the direct authority of the Ford Company, it came to me from an authentic source and I see no reason why it should not be published. It is not generally known that in regard to equipment the car that is put on the United States market by the Ford Company is not on all fours
with the car that- is put on the Canadian market. The Ford Company in this country equip their cars with 34-inch tires, with non-skid treads on the rear wheels, and with demountable rims. The larger-size tires alone are worth $10 more, and the non-skids and demountable rims are worth another $25. In addition, they use a one-man top, finer upholstery, leather door grips, and other accessories that make a difference of $50 more. So that the Canadian Ford car has an equipment costing $85 more than that of the American Ford car. Then there is another factor to be noted. Of course, it is well known that- the Ford Company import certain component parts from their American factories, and the duty on those parts amounts to $23.12. I might say 'that until quite recently none of the automobile companies in this country made all their parts, and even to-day they import a certain proportion of them. There is also a duty on what are termed the unproductive materials that enter into the manufacture of these cars, such as coal, oil, and other articles which do not appear on a car. There is also the item of exchange on the products imported from the other side, and that exchange in the case of the materials that enter into the Ford car amounts to $10.40. Those items total $118.52, leaving a difference between the Canadian Ford car and the United States Ford car of only $48.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in a business of the proportions of the Ford Company we are very fortunate to have it established in this country even under these circumstances. The reason for that difference of $48 is due to the fact that in the United States the Ford Company turn out 1,000,000 cars as against only 60,000 turned out by the Canadian plant, Therefore the difference in the cost of making the various parts, and in furnishing dies, and other equipment must be plain to every one conversant with modern factory practice. As a matter of fact the Canadian Ford Company have no hesitation in saying that if their business grows-and at present they are exporting
25,000	of the 60,000 cars they manufacture- if their business grows a little more so they can overtake the unit cost of manufacture they will eventually be able to market the Ford car in Canada just as cheaply as in the United States.
It seems to me that it should not be up to me to defend an industry in the county of Kent; certainly I would not want to have another member jump up and do it in respect to an industry in my "own constitu-

ency. But what does this industry mean to Canada in general and to the county in particular in which the hon. member for North Essex lives? His county is benefiting to the extent of a payroll of $4,350,000 a year; the Government of this country is benefiting in customs paid to the extent of $696,000 a year, without including the duties paid by other corporations that supply the Ford Company with goods used in the manufacture of its car.
Now, having performed the duties of the hon. member for Kent (Mr. MoCoig) and of the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Kennedy)


Mr. McCOIG:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask
the hon. gentleman a question? He has referred to the hon. member for Kent not defending the automobile business. Would it make any difference if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) read what the hon. member for West Lambton said in relation to the automobile business? I cannot see that he criticised that business to any extent.


James Dew Chaplin: That may be the opinion of the hon. member (Mr. MeCoig). At any rate, I do not wish to repeat the speech he refers to, but I certainly looked upon it in that light. The hon. member for West Lambton made out a suppositious case in an attempt to show that the Government was taking a tremendous tax out of the people, and that the people were getting no particular benfit in return; but I think I have shown by figures that cannot be refuted that such is not the case-that as a matter of fact the reverse holds good.


Archibald Blake McCoig: From your standpoint
only.


James Dew Chaplin: Now I want to refer to a book that I have under my hand entitled " The Farmers' Platform." This book was published a year or two ago, but although its colour has not changed, the name, I understand, has, and the Farmers party is now known as the Progressive or the Agrarian party. A year or two ago the old name was good enough, but they were afraid that possibly the class call that was raised against them would be prejudicial to their prospects so they changed their name. I want to refer to several quotations in this book and I wish to do so in a kindly and gentlemanly spirit. I hope that what I shall have to say will be taken in the spirit in which it is inetnded; I do not want to be harsh and I will not .accuse those concerned of profiteering or anything of the kind. The book in question has 
been prepared by the Canadian Council of Agriculture and adopted by the United Farin-ers of Alberta, the Saskatchewan Grain Growers' Association, the Manitoba Grain Growers' Association and the United Farmers of Ontario. It is issued by the Canadian Council of Agriculture and published by the Grain Growers' Guide, so that it is fairly well revised or edited and fairly well, I should think, recommended. The first quotation I shall make is headed, "What the tariff costs," and reads as follows:
As already explained, under a system of protection, the consumer is compelled to pay a tax upon all imported goods that come under the tariff schedule. Upon all goods of domestic origin, produced under a protective system, the consumer must likewise pay a tax-although in this case the revenue finds its way to the bank account of private individuals alone. Now it has been estimated that the domestic trade of Canada alone is at least four times as great as the country's foreign trade, and in the United States seven times as great. It follows that for every dollar collected by way of customs dues, at least $4 are paid to private individuals. When one considers that the customs revenue for the year ending March 31, 1916, was $133,000,000, and that four times that sum was paid in addition to the protected interests, it will be seen what a crushing weight is laid upon the country's consumers.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to avoid all posisibility of a mistake, but this book has been so well edited and revised and so well prepared, that I would not think it pos-ible for a clerical error of any consequence to have crept within its covers. Consequently I am very much surprised to find that the customs revenue for the year ending March 31, 1916, is given as $133,000,000. I now have under my hand the customs returns for that year and they amount to $103,000,000. Of course a difference of thirty millions is only a small item, but you will notice that they say here that the figure is to be multiplied by four as being trade within the country. Thirty millions multiplied by four makes the trifling amount of $120,000,000. I am not advancing this as an argument but merely pointing out that these gentlemen from the Northwest, these new economists who have been studying political economy and all other forms of economy, during the last year, might have paid some attention to the facts, and seen that this book was published in correct form. That would occur to me as a good thing for them to do, and I would recommend that the next time they venture upon such a publication they will see to it that it is accurate. And here I might pause to observe that although in

the first book they issued they went into a lot of particulars they have since learnt a lot of sense; the latest book contains no particulars but simply a lot of glittering generalities-that is all, just generalities.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if the argument is correct that the duty is also collected on all internal trade-that because the internal trade is four times as great as the trade that goes through the custom house then four times the amount of that revenue goes into the pockets of somebody else-I assume that if the internal trade should amount to ten times as much as what comes through the custom house, there would be ten times the amount of duty plundered by somebody-because "plunder" is the word these people use in another case which I shall mention presently. To illustrate the effect of their argument I propose to go through the tariff and mention some of the articles that it contains. First of all I will roughly run through the tariff items that I have marked down; I have not done it very carefully but hurriedly in order to show how absolutely unjust and entirely unreliable any such statement as made here can be. Now out of this $103,-000,000-not $133,000,000 as they say in their book there is the W'ar tax collection and the balance consists of the regular customs returns for that year. But the manufacturers are certainly not interested in the figures that I am going to read, however much other people may be. Consequently if four times, or ten times the amount of taxes have been collected than should have been it cannot be on the items I. am going to read. That will be self-evident as I read them. The first item is-animals, $110,000 duty. Now if there has been $400,000 of duty cribbed by somebody else on this item, you will have to go down into the pockets of some hon. gentlemen sitting on the opposite benches below me and recover that money. The next item is- grain, duty of $400,000. That money was collected on different kinds of grain and if you deduct the exports I assume the grain consumption in the Dominion would be very considerable. Therefore, if it is true that that amount of duty has to be multiplied ten or twelve times I would like to know which hon. member among the Farmers' party has got this money. The next item is $4,000,000 worth of coal. Now the manufacturers cannot be held responsible for that.


Mr. ED W ARDS:: What has the hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) to say?


James Dew Chaplin: Perhaps that hon. member can tell us whether four times the amount of money I mentioned for coal was received by somebody in Nova Scotia? I pass over the item relating to coffee and come to the sum of $113,000 for eggs. Now who has cribbed this egg duty? Then there is $170,000 collected on fish. I would like to know whether the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) can tell us who got the multiplied amount in this case? Then there is an item of fruits, including nuts, $1,500,000. Well, there is a lot of fruit grown in my county but the hon. member for Fraser Valley ((Mr. Stacey) will also have to stand for some of that $6,000,000 steal. The next item I run across is hay- $19,000 collected on hay.


Mr. BUTTS:: The Speaker's county.


James Dew Chaplin: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker; I understand that that has reference to your own county. Honey-my hon. friend from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), a good Scotchman; we will put the honey on to him;, he got it. Butter, cheese and lard, $336,000.


An hon. MEMBER:: Frontenae.


Mr. EDWARDS:: I wish it were.


James Dew Chaplin: Now, here is another item: vegetables, $676,000. I have something to say about this vegetable business. One item on the vegetable list is potatoes. Potatoes, I understand, carry a duty of 20 cents a bushel. The value of the potatoes grown in Canada for home consumption in that year was about $51,000,000. At 20 cents a bushel there was $10,000,000 that somebody grabbed; I think that the member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell), and probably some hon. gentlemen from Prince Edward Island constituencies had better divvy up with the rest of us and call it square.
Now, I do not want to continue; there are a lot of other items-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


An hon. MEMBER:: Good stuff.


James Dew Chaplin: The items of spirits on which the duty was paid amount to a good many hundred thousand dollars. Brandy paid $960,000; cordials, $114,000; gin

where is that consumed?-$2,04V,000; rum, $534,000; whisky, $3,245,000;-and yet to read the Farmer's book you would suppose that all that stuff was properly chargeable against the manufacturers, multiplied by four, because that is really the way the thing reads. If it mea^v anything at all,

that is -what it is intended to convey, and in dealing -with the mattei as I have, I am simply following the directions that they laid down as to how the thing should be applied.
Now, this brings ime to another phase of the question. I wish again to refer to the Farmers' platform, page 19,-and this is where the word "plunder" comes in: "Plunder over boots and shoes:"
During the year ending March 31st, 1911, Canada imported $2,0M>j0'00 worth of boots and shoes-
I am not giving the odd figures.
-the duty upon which was $585,000. In that year the Dominion imported six times the value of boots and shoes from the United States that it did from Britain, and paid duty thereon amounting to $522,000, equal to 30 per cent. The value of the domestic product for that year is given as $33,967,000, of which $60,000 was exported.
Now, here it is again, the same argument, so- it is not a mistake like the ether mistake of $33,000,000,-it is in the game. I read:	.
Now, if our contention is sound, that the manufacturers add the full amount of their protection to the selling price of the commodity when disposed of in the home market, the people of Canada paid for that year, by way of taxes, the following sums:
Customs duties	$	585,996.71
To the manufacturers	 10,177,893.90
Then the amount of wages and salaries 33 given, but that does not enter into the argument. That is to say, the Canadian people paid by way of taxes, directly and indirectly, to the manufacturer and to the customs, $10,736,000. The way this is written: "Now, if our contention is sound" would make me believe, Mr. Speaker, that the man who wrote it was not quite sure of his ground; he was not very certain, so he put it that way. From the statement made in the House last year by the member for South Waterloo (Mr. Scott) I am quite convinced that the consumer pays little, if any, duty on the article manufactured in Canada. I am quite convinced that with the keen competition amongst over two hundred manufacturers in this country it would be absolutely impossible for any body of business men carrying on a business of $33,000,000 to make a profit of $10,000,000. What is more, I say to the ' member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) and to the other members of that aggressive party that there is no better field in Canada for a manufacturing enterprise than a proposition built upon that basis; if I were a younger man 1 would get after that business very quickly. It seems to me that that 
party would be a good deal better off to build up a business of this kind in their own .part of the country than to try to poll down similar business in another part of the country.
Another industry referred to is that reviled industry of canning. Every time some hon. members of this House look around the Chamber you will hear some attack upon the canning industry. Now,
I have something to say about the canning industry. I have in my county over fifteen canning factories, and not half of them are associated with Canners, Limited, either; they are operated by independent concerns, farmers' co-operative and other enterprises. It seems to me that if hon. gentlemen on the other side would ,get together with these men rather than hammer the business, they would make more progress and probably do more to benefit the country than they will ever do by trying to pull them down. It seems to me that there is a class of men running about in this country endeavouring to create class prejudice. There are men who are trying to make the farmer believe that the citizens in the town, his best customer, is his enemy, and others who are trying to make the city man believe that the farmer, his best customer, is his enemy. Such business as this ought to be "sat upon," to use a common expression, by the rest of the people of this country.
I want to refer again to this book. 1 would advise all hon. members of this House to get this book.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


An hon. MEMBER:: And live up to it.


James Dew Chaplin: There is no book that I would rather discuss before an audience of intelligent people anywhere in my constituency. I will take the book back to my constituents. BE shall be glad, indeed if the secretary will send me a dozen or more copies of it. Let me read a few words on page 25 in regard to trusts and tariffs:
Truly, the tariff ii ''the mother of trusts" and when it is abolished the trusts, with their high prices, unfair competition with the small producer and unfair practices, are bound to be broken up. Free trade England is free also of the trust which flourishes in every protected country in the world.
The emphasis is not in the book.


Mr. LALOR:: That is a joke.


James Dew Chaplin: I want to say something about this oft-repeated statement "no trusts in free-trade England". I wtish the hon. member for Red-Deer (Mr. Clark) was here.

beoause he knows all about [English history, and I want to go back a few pages in history and tell him some things that he will probably not be so sure are satisfactory to his free trade theories. I have under my hand a list of mergers that were formed in free-trade England and that cover a large number of trades. This list is not by any means up to date, but I can tell lnon. members w-hfere they may procure the List and thus, probably, they may be able to get in touch with someone from whom they can get the more up-to-date list.


Mr. BURNHAM:: I have the British reports, if any hon. member would like to have them.


James Dew Chaplin: I desire now, Mr. Speaker, to refer to a few other manufactures in my own town. I am cognizant of the fact that I am not very consecutive-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on; you are doing splendidly.


James Dew Chaplin: -but I shall put before the House all the facts that are in my possession. My own city has wonderfully improved during the last few years, and there have come into cur district a number of American factories. Now, I would ask my hon. friends this question: If it is true that the duty is collected entirely by the Canadian manufacturer how is it that the American comes in here to establish factories? If the American could place his goods on the Canadian market on an equality with Canadian goods there would be no necessity for him to build factories in Canada, and T may say that there are 150 new factories in my district. Would these men be foolish enough to start these new concerns if they could make their goods in the United States and place them here on an equality with the Canadian goods? The argument is ridiculous. The argument that the consumer pays the duty is absolutely futile and ridiculous. But if any other argument is needed to show the necessity for a tariff I will supply that argument by stating a matter of personal knowledge. A short time ago an automobile tire company came into our town. It *was a branch of an Akron concern. Some time last fall the Toronto Globe was worrying about the tariff, and, like my hon. friends opposite, indulging in generalities, undertook to discuss the question of tires. Someone had written to the Toronto Globe stating what an awful shame it was that they had to pay 471 per cent on tires, and one tire company, which makes goods in Canada and in the United States, wrote under its own signature to the Toronto Globe and said something to the following effect: We are probably the largest makers of tires in the United States and certainly the largest in Canada, and we are selling our product in this country at just about the same prices as it is soli in the United States. Now, for three years the prices of tires in the St. Catharines Company, which is a branch of the Akron concern, have been the same as those at Akron. Who pays the duty there? If there are some people who want a tire not made in Canada and who are prepared to import it, of course he will pay the duty on it; but if he is content to buy from one

of the eight or ten manufacturers of tires in this country he will get a tire as cheap as one that is sold in the United States. What I say now has reference to the con-diion of affairs a month or two ago. What prices are to-day I do not know. Rubber and fabric both come from the United States, and the rate of exchange may have altered matters to a slight degree; but under no circumstance is there more than a difference of 5 per cent between the tires made in Canada and those made in the United States.
I have a few lemarks to make in regard to some more goods sold in St. Catharines, and I have personal information in regard to the matters of which I shall speak. I did not want to take figures from any firm in St. Catharines for the purposes of any comparison; I took the trouble to write to a Montreal concern, competitors of mine, who do business in the United States. I do not mind telling the name of the company; it is the Simmonds Saw Company. I got my manager to write and ask what was the selling price in the United States, and in reply we were advised,, "The prices are practically the same." In giving some examples the writer said:
We are selling: such and such a style of saw to mill men in the United States at $5.50 per hundred, and we are selling It in Canada at $5.75 a hundred.
A difference of only 25 cents, or a little more than a postage stamp, especially where we import our raw material. The writer also says:
On mill saws, high grade cross-cut saws, cheap cross-cut saws, points, shanks, etc., there is the same slight difference, and in order that you may have the fullest information which I can give you on American prices, I am attaching discount sheet effective April 1st, 1920, showing the Fitchburg,. Mass, and the Canadian prices.
There is another American firm in my home town, and they write me to say that their largest item of production, malleable iron, is sold just as cheap in Canada as it is in the Unded States.
Then I ha\e a letter from the Yale & Towne Company, a well known concern, also located in St. Catharines, giving me a list of their products,-and I could give a few figures showing their American prices as compared with their Canadian prices, but I will not weary the House with these details. It is sufficient for me to say that the figures show the benefit our people are deriving from these American factories having been established in this country, and that we

are not paying a sou more for tiieir products.
One more item and I have exhausted my list. A firm which manufactures grape juice-a beverage which is very much needed in these dry times-established a factory in my home town, and in reply to my inquiries the manager writes me:
We are selling grape Juice in Canada just as cheap as we are selling it in the United States.
Yet our friends of the Farmers' party would have us believe that tire full tariff is taken by the manufacturers on everything they produce
Before I close 1 want to refer to one other matter which perhaps I should have mentioned before; it is another personal illustration of how the British manufacturer or shipper can be protected without a tariff. Not very long ago my company was enjoying business at the coast on a certain article, and suddenly that business dropped off, our agent advising us that the decline was owing to some British goods coming in- We know that the British trader as a rule does not cut prices, and in that respect he is not like his brother in the United States; the British trader makes his prices out of the freight rates and his lower cost of manufacture, and very seldom does he cut prices. We applied to our Liverpool agents to ascertain what the rate of freight was from Liverpool to Victoria, B.C., and we discovered that the Canadian Pacific Railway was carrying the goods from Liverpool across this continent at $1.25 per hundred freight. Our freight rate from the factories at St. Catharines to the same point on the identical class of goods was $1.80. In other words, the difference in the rate was a profit in itself I appealed to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, because it looked to me like an outrage, but I got no satisfaction Then a body of our manufacturers got together in Montreal, and from our plant there we shipped those goods down to Vera Cruz in Mexico and across Mexico up the Coast and landed them in Victoria at 90 cents a hundred. It was not until we were able to protect ourselves in that way that we could deal with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Then they came to us and quoted us a rate of $1 a hundred, which enabled us to hold that trade. I just mention that to show that there are other factors besides the tariff to protect a manufacturer.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am through. I merely want to add that I come from a
county that has had a wonderful expansion in manufactures, and I ask the people of this 'ountry if their representatives here are going to do something which will injure that industrial prosperity. I come from a county that has spent on its fruit industry millions of dollars; and tho.se fruit farmers want the duty on fruit retained. Gentlemen cf the Farmers party may talk as much as they like, but the fact remains that the people in my county want that tariff, and if my friends of the Farmers party will go dowm there they will find out the real state of affaires in pretty quick time. Again I ask hon. gentlemen: What are you going to do? Are you goin to do something that will destroy these industries?
I am rather ashamed, Mr. Speaker, at having taken up so much of the time of the House, but I have the excuse that I have not transgressed very much before. I wish to thanv hon. members very heartily for the kind atention that they have given to me remarks.


Mr. T. W. CALDWELL (Victoria and Carleton (N.B.):: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding to discuss the Budget and the amendment to it which is before the House, I would like to deal briefly with some of the remarks made by the last speaker, the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin). Especially do I want to deal with his statement with regard to the difference in the American and the Canadian price of a Ford car. And when I speak on this matter I am not speaking of something that some one told me or that some one wrote to me; I am speaking from personal experience.
In the early stages of this session I made a statement in regard to this matter, and I might say that the hon. member for Lincoln was not the only person who got up in the air about it. Here is a letter I received from the manager of the Ford Motor Company, covering four large Sheets of paper, as the House will observe. In it he advances much the same argument as that employed by the hon. member for Lincoln, and he even threatened that he would put this in the hands of some hon. member and that I would get a " trimming." Well, I am quite prepared to take a " trimming " when it is coming to me, but it is not coming this time, thank the Lord! I want to quote some of the contents of this letter, and then I will come to the facts. The manager of the Ford, Company wrote:

In the case of the Ford touring car-which is the article which is the major proportion of our production-I may say that the equipment of the Canadian car is somewhat different from that of the car in the United States. Inasmuch as we put on larger tires and the car is also equipped with demountable rims and extra tire carrier and other items of this kind, which makes the car in Canada of considerably more monetary value.
Further on he says:
We put on a one-man top and a ventilating wind shield also.
I have worn out one Ford car. In September last I bought another one, and I have the receipted bill right here, the items of which I will give a little later. I bought this car in Woodstock, N.B. I was in the town of Holton, in the state of Maine, only twelve miles from Woodstock, the day before I bought the car. I priced the value of the car in Holton. I will admit there was a difference in the forward tires. The forward tires on the Ford car in Maine are three inches whereas in the case of the Ford car sold in New Brunswick those tires are three and a half inches, representing a difference in the neighbourhood of $7 in price. In all other respects the car was exactly the same as the car I bought in Woodstock the next day. The car I bought did not have the one-man top, or a ventilating wind shield, or demountable rims or have even a tool box or tire carrier; the only difference was in regard to the forward tires. The car I bought has a self-starter which is identical with the self-starter made by the same firm in the case of the Holton car. With regard to the starter the difference in the price was $40. This starter cost $70 in Holton whereas in Woodstock it cost $110, a difference of $40 on a $70 article notwithstanding the fact that the hon. gentleman who has just	taken	his	seat told	us	thatmanufactured	goods	are	as cheap	in	Canada as they are in the United States notwithstanding the duty.


John Hampden Burnham: What was the duty on that car?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: If the hon. member
will have the patience to listen what I am stating may penetrate his cranium if it is not too thick, before I have done. Now the car I bought	cost $900, and	thetire carrier	$7.25,	a	total of	$907.25
for the, bare car without any tool box to carry tools in. Even without any tire carrier the car cost $900 in Woodstock when I could have bought it for $640 in Holton. Allowing for $7 on account of the

difference in the tires that would make the Holton car $253 cheaper. I said to the dealer in Woodstock " I should have bought a car in Holton yesterday, I could have bought one for $240 less." He replied "Yes, but the car would cost you just the same when you brought it in because you would have had to pay duty on it." It was because of the duty I was charged the extra $240 in Woodstock, and in these purchases we cannot help ourselves. There has been a campaign conducted in Canada for the last few years-you will see the posters on every fence, and on every vacant lot-urging you to buy " Made in Canada goods " otherwise you are a traitor to your country. If I had bought this car in Holton I would have got it for $240 less and would have paid $240 in duty on it, and I consider that I would have been more patriotic to my country because then the revenue of Canada would have benefited to the extent of $240 instead of it going into the manufacturer's pocket.
The hon. member for Lincoln made the statement that there was a duty of twenty cents a bushel on potatoes. I did not quite catch the whole of his remark in that oon-' neetion and I am sorry the hon. gentleman is not at present in the Chamber. If he were here I would ask him if that applied to potatoes going out of or coming into Canada. I want to tell him that he does not know what he is talking about, there is no duty on potatoes going from Canada to the United States or on potatoes coming from the United States into Canada. He also states that there were 20,000,000 bushels exported I can prove that he is wrong in that statement because we have never exported more than 4,150,000 bushels from Canada in any one year according to the export statistics:
It would also be of interest to the House, it would certainly be of interest to the people of Canada, to know that the hon. gentleman-who by the way just made the kind of speech I would expect him to make after looking up, shall I call it his pedigree, in the Parliamentary Guide-is the president of two large manufacturing firms therefore he delivered just the kind of speech I would expect such a man to make.
I do not blame him much because if the Farmers' platform is put into effect-to call it by its right name, which he seems *to think we are ashamed of, but we are not-he and his like will certainly lose a nighty good graft they are collecting off the people of Canada.

The hon. gentleman also said he would like to discuss the Farmers' platform throughout the country. Mr. Speaker, I think you wild admit that the discussion of the Farmers' platform has so far not brought very good results to the party the hon. gentleman supports. That platform has been discussed not by the farmers alone but by others. In the recent by-elections we had the spectacle of some of the ablest ministers in the present Cabinet going out and discussing the features of that platform. If they were not able to present it in a way that would make the people condemn it, that fact is surely a commendation of our platform.
Another thing the hon. member said was that the gross difference in the price of a Ford car in the United States amounted to $165. He worked that down, I believe, to $48. The manager of the Ford Motor Car company claimed that there is a difference of $130 between the American car and the Canadian oar. Therefore he could not have written the same letter to the hon. member for Lincoln that he wrote to me, and I have the bill of the car I bought, under the Ford Motor Company's own bill heads, at $900 without even the tire-holder or tool box. The House will believe me when I make this statement and I am not saying something that somebody wrote me or telegraphed me. As I say I bought this car and paid $240 more for it on account of buying it in Canada instead of the United States. They tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the experience you buy is the best experience you can get if it does not cost you too much. I feel that my experience in this case cost just a little too much.
I had not the privilege-on account of illness in my family-of being in the House when the Budget Speech was delivered. Perhaps I was more disappointed than surprised to find that no provision was made for a revision of the tariff, although we were promised last year that the whole tariff question would be investigated before the present session was called so that the Government could deal with it intelligently. The ex-Finance Minister (Sir Thomas White) in the Budget Speech which he delivered on June 5, 1919, is reported as making the following promise:
It is my hope that within a year conditions will have become so stabilized as to permit of a general revision of the tariff, which is- long, but, owing to the war, unavoidably overdue. Preceding such revision there should be a thorough inquiry conducted by the Minister of Finance and two or more of his colleagues representing the different geographical sections of Canada. Such inquiry should afford all interests, agricultural, industrial, fishing, lumbering, mining, commercial, and financial, producers and consumers alike, an opportunity of expressing their views and opinions and urging their particular needs and requirements. The rsult of such inquiry should be a body of information which will enable the Government to effect a general revision of the tariff fair to all parts of the community, and effectually promoting the national welfare of Canada. This inquiry should proceed with its work just as soon as conditions are sufficiently stabilized to permit. My own view is that it might well be commenced about autumn of this year.
That was in 1919. And yet we had the spectacle in this House recently of the Finance Minister (Sir Henry Drayton) bringing down his Budget and promising that there shall be a revision some time in the dim and distant future. The ex-Finance Minister said that t-his revision was overdue a year ago, or almost a year ago. If it was overdue at that time it is certainly more than overdue to-day. I think we have a right to be disappointed to find that no mention is made of the revision of the tariff this year; the Government speak of waiting until the conditions are stabilized. I think, Mr. Speaker, that considering the course the present Government are taking the conditions will be no more stabilized than they are to-day until we have a general election and perhaps a change of Govem-menU-who knows? I think the low tariff supporters of the Government must be easily satisfied if this continued promise of revision from year to year satisfies them. However, I was glad to notice yesterday that they are not all satisfied; that some of them have the courage of their convictions, the courage to get on their feet and condemn the party which they have supported, when they believe it is wrong. If the Government are wise they will take warning from the defections from their ranks, made by men who have supported them for years.
I would warn the Government also not to put off too long this promised investigation into the tariff, because if they put it off a couple of years or more they man not have the opportunity of making the investigation. If they wish to investigate tariff conditions and adopt a tariff that will be satisfactory to Canada, they are making a great mistake, if I may be allowed to give them that advice, in putting it off as long as they have. Their chances for re-election would have been much better if they had brought down a measure for reduction of the tariff this year.
I am very much pleased to see the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) in his seat; I thought that he was going to leave the Chamber, and I wanted to direct his

attention to one or two matters. I was rather amused at his speech the other evening, and he is not usually amusing. I do not think that he really meant to be amusing on this occasion, because he seemed to be in his usual sarcastic form. Shall I be allowed to say that he even seemed to be a bit anxious? In one breath he said that it would be the ruination of Canada to lower the tariff, and in the next breath he claimed credit for the party he supports for lowering the tariff on a number of articles, and for taking off the 7i per cent special war tax.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to quote two sentences that will illustrate the truth of his two remarks?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I do not know just what two sentences out of his speech a man could find that would illustrate what the minister said with regard to any particular matter; but if he will have patience I will go on. He did not explain to this House or to the country that the present Government put on this 7f per cent duty in the first place; yet he brags that the Government took it off. He puts me in mind of the method followed by some of our retail storekeepers when they put on a cheap sale: they mark their goods up fifty per cent, then mark them down twenty per cent and call it a cheap sale. The minister's reduction of the tariff reminds me very much of this kind of cheap sale.
Another statement the Minister of the Interior made the other evening was that he thought the new Progressive party should support the party in this House that acted, not a party which only professed and did not act on those professions. He also made a great ado because we did not move the Farmers' platform as an amendment to the Budget. Now, no man in this House knows better than the Minister of the Interior that the rules of this House allow only one amendment to be moved to the Budget. The fact that the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) was the first speaker after the Budget was delivered and that he moved his amendment before he sat down effectively shut us out from moving any other amendment. But, in the first place, I wish to state that the new Progressive party do not propose to support either party in this House.


Arthur Meighen: May I be permitted to suggest to the hon. member that he may still move that Farmers' platform in amendment to Supply?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Thank you; no doubt we will do dt. I have no doubt that the Government will adopt that platform after the discussion is over. I notice that it seems to be in great demand among the supporters of the Government and that they have already adopted some of its best 'features. If they should be lucky enough to hold on to office by hook or by crook, I think that they will adbpt it all.
But, as I say, we do not propose to support either of the old parties in this House. When a question arises such as the present question before the House we intend to take a stand on it that will be in the best interests of Canada. We may err, but if we do we shall err in judgment; we shall not be whipped into line to support this party or that against our convictions,-do not make any mistake about that. I think that we have proved our independence in this House during the present session; we have voted with the Government perhaps as often as against them. I am only sorry that we were not able to vote with them oftener, because if we had been able to vote with them it would have meant that they were bringing down good legislation, legislation for the good of Canada and which we would have been pleased to support. We do not come here to oppose any party; we are not like the Irishman who said: "Is there a government in the country?" and upon receiving a reply in the affirmative, said: "Well, I am opposed to it." We are certainly not in that position. We are here to support good legislation, not party. Partyism is what has brought governments in Canada-and I use the word "governments" advisedly-to such a condition as that which we see to-day. When people support a party regardless of how-d am almost at a loss for a word to express it strongly enough without disobeying the rules of the House-regardless of how much evil they have committed and how bad the administration is, it tends to bad government. The indications are that this Government will be turned down, if the late by-elections are any indication of the feeling of the people in constituencies where opinion was formerly pretty well divided as-between the two parties. I think the Government themselves realize what that means.
With regard to the amendment that is before us, I for one do not approve it in its entirety. But I shall certainly support the amendment, because we have been denied by the rules of the House the privilege of moving a second amendment and I consider

the amendment is the lesser of two evils. I would like very much, however, to see the third party in this House recognized as such, so that we should have the privilege of moving a second amendment. When there were only two parties in this House it was certainly proper that there should be only one amendment moved to the Budget, but ,when there are three parties it is no more than right and fair that two parties should have the privilege of moving amendments. However, we do not feel like insisting very strongly upon our rights as a third party, because we do not expect always to occupy third place in this House. I do not think any hon. member who is in touch with the feeling of the people would be considered a prophet if he expressed the view that after the next general election the present Government would be occupying third place in this House-I am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet, but I am not afraid to make this prophecy-and those who live to see will know-that the Unionist party will be the smallest party in this House after the next general election. I firmly believe that, and, as an hon. gentleman near me says, I think the Government believe it too.


Mr. OOPP:: They look like that.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Now, the new system of taxation as proposed by the Finance Minister is said to be a luxury tax on manufacturers and wholesalers, but, to my mind, if that is the mark aimed at, the minister has missed it by a considerable distance. The maximum price on articles exempt from this tax is too low. The poorer, a man is the less, for instance, he can afford to buy shoes under $9 a pair, because the cheaper shoes are not of good quality and not good value for the money. What applies to shoes also applies to clothes. No man knows better than the Finance Minister that you cannot buy a decent suit of clothes at less than $45, the maximum price of an untaxed suit. If the maximum amount exempted had been half as much again, it would have been nearer the mark. On the other hand, instead of taxing the manufacturer and wholesaler, the Government are simply imposing .another tax on the. consumer, because the manufacturer adds the amounf of these taxes to his invoices. In fact, the Minister of Finance has instructed him to do so; on Hansard, unrevised edition, page 2571, the manufacturer is specially instructed not to include the tax in the price of the goods but to
invoice the goods at the factory price and to state the amount of the tax as a separate item on the invoice. Therefore, the Minister of Finance, by no stretch of his imagination, could claim that this was a tax on the manufacturer, because the manufacturer was instructed to pass it along and mark it as a separate item on the invoice.
I notice the Minister of Finance, as reported on page 2571 of unrevised Hansard, states that this tax shall be deemed to have come into force on the 19th day of May, 1920. I do not know what time of the day these resolutions were presented, but I understand they were presented one afternoon and put into effect the next morning. If this be the case, if the minister can draft a Bill and present it to this House one afternoon and have it put into force the next morning, what is the need of calling Parliament together at all? I had thought that a Bill had to pass this House by a majority of votes and after that be ratified by the Senate, and be signed by the Governor General before it became law. 0.f course, we know thalt the present Administration has set all kinds of precedents by way of Orders in Council, but it certainly gave me quite a jolt to find that the Finance Minister could enact a law overnight, and put it into effect the next morning before breakfast. Truly the day of miracles is coming back to us again. It would be much quicker, instead of calling Parliament, for the Minister of Finance to handle this end of the matter; the Minister of the Interior could handle his department, and so on. The trouble is that the Government have not sufficient ministers to man all the departments, and they dare not appoint any new ministers and send them out for election because they might not come back; they might get lost. I might, however, suggest to the Minister of Finance a source of revenue that would not impose a hardship on the common people of Canada; in fact, I believe it would confer a benefit on them. My suggestion would be to impose an export duty on our print paper, say of 10 per cent. I believe there is a possibility that hundreds of our small papers will go out of business after July 1, because at that time their contracts for newsprint, I understand, will expire, and the cost of paper at the present time is so great that the small papers, without increasing their subscriptions to a price that their subscribers would not, perhaps, feel like paying for the paper, will not be able to carry on.
This may not appeal'to the Government because, perhaps, the Government would

be pleased if there were fewer newspapers printed dn this country; Perhaps they would be as well pleased if the doings in this House, especially an event that happened on the other side of the House last night, were not heralded broadcast in the newspapers of this country. I saw this big headline in the newspapers this morning: "Big defection from the Government ranks last night." No doubt the Government would have been pleased if that had not appeared. I believe the United States' papers are willing to pay per ton for newsprint $240, in American money, which means much mors in Canadian money at the present time. I believe the representative of a number of British dailies is in Canada, and he has $40,000,000 with which to buy what newsprint he can pick up. If there were a 10 per cent export duty on this commodity, we would collect $4,000,000 on this one deal. I believe there is also in Canada a Hindoo who represents a large combination of publishers in Bombay and who has power to purchase newsprint, price being no consideration, and he wants newsprint is thousand-ton lots. Two years ago, our publishers were paying $45 a ton for newsprint; after the 1st of July they expect to be compelled to pay $240 a ton. Of course, our publishers are not objecting so much to- the price; their fear is that they may not be able to secure a supply at all, because these outside firms are willing to pay almost any price for the full output of Canadian newsprint. If I might be allowed, as a new member, to make a suggestion to a gentleman so high up as the Minister o-f Finance, I would suggest that he take this into his serious consideration.


Mr. RICHARDSON:: Did the hon. member say that at the present time Canadian publishers were paying $240 a ton for newsprint?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I understand that American or British firms are willing to pay $240 a ton. Canadian publishers are not paying that ait the present time. Their contract does not expire until the 1st July; but after that time they expect they will have to pay this sum, or ait least, I am so informed by a good number of publishers.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I am sorry I misunderstood the hon. gentleman, because at the present time Canadian publishers are paying $80 per ton.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Does the hon. gentleman deny that it will be likely that they 
will have to pay $240 per ton after the 1st July?


Robert Lorne Richardson: The price after the 1st July will be $110 or possibly it may be $115 per ton, but we are notified that the price will be from $110 to $115.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: prices of axes in Montreal and Pittsburg. No doubt those axes were manufactured by different firms at widely separated points. The price-lists I have here are those of an American firm with a Canadian branch factory, or assembling plant-the firm itself calls it a factory. The two points at which these price-lists are put into effect are only six miles apart on either side of the American boundary, one being in the State of Maine and the other in New Brunswick. I am not simply giving hearsay in this matter, because I live within six miles of the American boundary line myself, and I know the conditions; I know whereof I speak. Two men living on adjoining farms, one on the American side, and the other on the Canadian side, buy the same machine and one pays the American price, while the man on the Canadian side pays the bigger price. Here are the prices. On a six-foot mower the price in Canada is $97.50; in the United States, $90; a ten-foot rake, $57 in Canada, $52 in the United States; five-foot reaper, $134 in Canada, $125 in the United States; nine-foot land roller, $77.50 in Canada, $60 in the United States; six-foot binder, $258.50 in Canada, $235 in the United States; six-row potato sprayer, $235 in Canada, $185 in the United States. If you want any more evidence I can give it by the yard. I am sure that these prices will be of interest to the hon. member for Lincoln, who, I am sorry, is not in his seat. I know they are of interest to the hon. member ^or Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt), who I see eyeing me very sharply. I have some of his prices here which I could compare with the prices of machinery sold by the Grain Growers in Winnipeg, but I will not put them on Hansard unless he wishes. He shakes his head. I do not blame him.


William Foster Cockshutt: Do not consider me. You won't hurt me.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Of course the same
old cry will be raised, how will you raise your revenue? I should like to ask my high protectionist friends how the revenue has always been raised. The people of Canada must always raise the revenue, but there has been a tendency for the party in power in this country to. make the people believe that the Government by some miraculous agency was able to raise the revenue of the country without going into the pockets of the people. The sooner we get away from that fallacy the better, because there is no miraculous way of raising the revenue. It is up to this Parliament (and wei can all assist if they will take our aflvice a little) ,to devise the most economic method
(Mr. Caldwell.]
for raising the revenue. I do not think a man needs to be any very great student of economics to realize that our present tariff is the most extravagant method of raising the revenue that could be devised, for, as I have shown, pretty clearly I think, for every dollar of duty, especially on the implements of production which I have mentioned, that goes into the treasury of the country, perhaps three or four go into the pockets of the Canadian manufacturer, or worse still, into the pockets of the American manufacturer with a Canadian branch factory, who sends the duty he collects from the Canadian people back to his Yankee bank account.


Albert James Smith Copp: Does that apply to the ploughs as well?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Undoubtedly. I do
not blame the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, or the hon. member for Lincoln for protesting against the lowering of the tariff, because it would cut off a mighty nice graft they have been collecting from the people. I put the blame where it rightly belongs, and that is on the shoulders of any government or any party in this country which will enaot legislation allowing them to do this. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association, or its members, are only human after all-we are all more or less human. One of these Canadian manufacturers is so human that I think he made the statement under oath that he was not running his factory for the glory of God, but to make dividends for the shareholders. That is what we are all doing more or less, but I hope -that some of us, in our daily work and business, are giving a little more glory to God than that man was. However, I say I do not blame these people, but the Government, which enacts legislation which enables them to do it, and even instructs them through that legislation how to do it by stating on the invoice to the next man to whom the manufacturer sells his goods what the tax is and to charge it up, for fear it would not otherwise be charged up to the retailer, and in turn to the consumer. From my experience with the manufacturers I do not think those instructions were needed. I do not think the Minister of Finance needed ito add that rider to his Bill.
Of course, your high protectionists will say that if you take the duties off these things, it means direct taxation. I for one, am not afraid of direct taxation, nor are the farmers of this country, and if the farmers, the largest property holders in

Canada-I say that without fear of successful contradiction-are not afraid of direct taxation, why should the resit of the people be afraid of it? I consider that direct taxation is the only equitable method of raising the revenue, because then every man in Canada will pay his share according to his ability to pay. In other words, he pays according to what he is worth, instead of on what he consumes. I think the tariff carried to its logical conclusion even tends to race suicide in this country, aud I will show you why. You need not laugh Mr. Cockshutt, because I can show you that what I say is true.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. I must point out to the hon. member that the rule of the House requires that a member shall refer to another hon. member by his constituency.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am sorry for having transgressed the rules of the House, Mr. Speaker, but I assure you I did so inadvertently. May I ask if it is in accordance with the rules of the House for one hon. member to laugh at another?


An hon. MEMBER:: Of course; if you
talk rubbish.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I do not mind the laugh, Mr. Speaker, and I know it does the member for Brantford good. By direct taxation a man is taxed on what he is worth and not on what he consumes. I believe, Sir, that the tariff, carried to its logical conclusion will tend to race suicide at the present high cost of living. Take a labouring man working for ordinary wages and having to support a family of nine; indeed, Mr. Speaker, I know a man in my constituency-he is a farmer-with a family of twenty-one. At the present high cost of living, with the high duty on woollen goods and shoes, and with this new tax added to all these articles if they come above the maximum price at which goods are exempt-and I believe that a good many articles will come above that price even when bought by the poorest people in Canada-it will be almost prohibitive for a poor man to raise a family. For that reason I think I am justified in saying that the tariff will tend to race suicide; I think I am logical in that statement. With regard to direct taxation I am very much pleased to know that I am in such close accord, on this very important subject, with one of the oldest and possibly one of the wisest parliamentarians in Canada to-day. I refer to the hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), and I
desire to quote from his speech delivered on May 18, 1920, at page 2592 of unrevised Hansard:
Every one must realize the tact that there is a duty to be done, and that it is not by the indirect method that it shall be done. We have had two systems of taxation, one almost entirely predominating up to the present time, and that is the method of indirect taxation, by which the people paid heavily and did not know when they were doing so. All sorts of assertions have been made as to the amounts they paid1,-assertions which of course would partake of the particular power of imagination of the man who made them and of his boldness of speech. All kinds of assertions, have been made, many of them grotesquely exaggerated; but nevertheless one of the features of indirect taxation is that you pay out not knowing how much you do pay. I doubt if that system of taxation altogether imposed upon a country is a good school teacher to that country, and does finally eventuate in what is best for the interests of the people.
To draw a comparison, Mr. Speaker, or to illustrate the principle of indirect taxation I might suggest that it is just the same as if a storekeeper, when a customer went into his store to buy something, got some one to divert that person's attention while he picked his pockets, and if the customer did not know that this was being done it would be all right, That is the principle of indirect taxation carried to its logical conclusion : " If you do not know that your money is gone, therefore it is not gone." The statement I have just quoted, coming from an hon. gentleman of the ability and experience of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, a man who has always advocated the indirect method of raising a revenue-or in other words a tariff for revenue-cannot fail to impress the members of this House and the people of this country.
I wish also, before I sit down, to compliment the hon. Minister of Finance on the fact that he had the courage to say that he would not exempt the last Victory loan from taxation, especially in view of the precedent which his predecessor had established in the matter. I wish also to compliment the Government on the enactment of the income tax measure, as I believe it is one of the wisest acts that have been passed by this Government, and I also believe that the exemption of the former Victory loans was perhaps the most- unwise act of the present Administration. I think, -Mr. Speaker, that " unwise " is even too mild a word to express my disapproval of this act, and I hardly think the ex-Minister of Finance realized the seriousness of this act at the time, nor the far-reaching consequences of it. In the first place, now that we have this very wise income tax Act,

the people with large incomes are seeking every avenue of escape from its operation, and this exemption of the Victory bonds provides a very good way of escape for them. And in view of the immense revenue that Canada must raise, not only this year, hut for at least as long a period or possibly longer, than these bonds are issued for, I consider it was little short of criminal to exempt them from taxation, for in this way our wealthy men in Canada are able to tie up their wealth so that we cannot tax the income from it, and the Government know what that means; at any rate I hope they do. It means that if the wealth of the country escapes taxation, the rest of us must pay more in consequence.
Last summer as I travelled through the province from which I come I saw in every broker's window, and in the windows of a good many barristers in the different towns through which I passed, some such notice as this: ''Victory bonds bought and sold"; and I wondered what they meant, because I knew there was no Victory loan floated at that time. My mother used to tell me when I was a boy that I was of a rather inquisitive turn of mind, and I fear that I have not entirely overcome that failing, if it is a failing. I was therefore somewhat curious to know what this notice meant. On inquiry I found that they were not selling Victory bonds at all but were buying them, and I was anxious to know the reason. The corporations and individuals in our .province-and T imagine that what is true in the case of New Brunswick it true in regard to every other province in Canada-who formerly had money to loan on real estate were withdrawing fit as fact as they could find tax-exempt bonds to .invest in. They were withdrawing their money out of these loans as fast as possible and getting different brokers and barristers to buy Victory bonds. Someone will say, perhaps, that they would not get many. Well, Sir, it would surprise you to know how many they gathered in. We have many patriotic .people in our province, and though I would not claim a greater share of patriotism for that province than exists in any other province, I do not think that it will take second place to any other part of Canada so far as response to duty is concerned. We have a number of very patriotic people in our province, I say, who did not have very much money to invest but who felt that they should do what they could to help in the crisis that faced the country. A number of these people bought Victory bonds and made a payment down of only 
10 per cent. At a later period they were having a hard time to finance their business, or for one reason or another they were not able to make their further payments, either it was not convenient for them to do so, or they could make more money perhaps in some other avenue of business; at any rate, a large number of these small bond holders-not the big ones, but holders' of $50, $100, and $500 bonds -were anxious to 'sell, and the brokers gathered up their bonds. The consequence is that in New Brunswick to-day you cannot borrow money on real estate at the same interest that you could before those Victory loans were floated. It not only deprives the people of this wealth in New Brunswick, as well as all over Canada, but it makes it harder for the poor man who wants to get into business to borrow money; so it has had a double effect.
Another thing that makes the tax exemption of these bonds more iniquitous than an ordinary Act of Parliament is the fact that it cannot be repealed; it is like the laws of the Medes and Persians. Being a part of the agreement made with the people of Canada when we borrowed this money from them, no .Government has any power to rescind or vary it, and we must stand toy that agreement, no matter how iniquitous we find it to be.
I wash also to refer to another matter, contained in a series of questions that I put on the Order Paper and which were answered on March 16 by the Minister of Railways (iMr. Reid)-and I am very sorry that he is not in his seat. However, he will be able to read this in Hansard and I hope he will be able to clear the matter up for me, because I must confess that it has disturbed me somewhat. The questions are as follows:
Did) the Dominion Government make an. agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to secure running rights for the said St. John and Quebec Railway trains over the said Canadian Pacific railway between Westfield Beach and St. John?
The answer is: No. The next question is:
If so, what was the date of such agreement and the terms?
The answer is: Answered by No. 4. The next question is:
And if the Dominion Government did not make such agreement, who did, and what are the terms?
The answer is:
St. John and Quebec Railway Co. The terms are as follows: St. John and Quebec Railway Co.

are to pay interest on a proportion of the value of the joint section plus a proportion of all working expenses calculated on a wheeiage basis.
The last question is:
Is the Dominion Government now operating the St. John and Quebec Railway as part of the Dominion Government railway system?
The answer to which ie:
This line is being operated by the Canadian Government railways as part of the system.
Those answers look all right on their face, but I was afraid at the time that possibly the Minister of Railways did not have correct information, for I did not suppose the error was a typographical one and knowing the facts in connection with this transaction I realized these answers could not be correct. Consequently I was not at all surprised when I saw the statement made by the Premier of New Brunswick in the Provincial House of Assembly on April 19, 1920, in regard to this matter. It will be noticed that the answers to my questions were given on the 16th of April, and the Premier of New Brunswick made his statement three days later. He said:
It was expected that the Canadian National railways would take over the road for operation when completed on September 1st, 1919u For more than a year previous the directors of the company had been urging on the management of the Canadian National railways the necessity of making some arrangement with the Canadian Pacific railway for running rights between St. John and Westfield. Assurance had been given by the officials of the Canadian National railways that such arrangements had been made and that there would be no difficulty or delay. When the road was completed, however, it was found that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company would not allow Valley railway trains to run over their tracks until an agreement in writing had been made. The statute provided that if the St. John and Quebec Railway Company did not make an arrangement for running rights that the Canadian National railways could do so, in which case the Valley railway could take no share of the receipts from the line between Westfield and St. John, nor would it be obliged to pay the rental and other charges in respect to that section. The Canadian National Railway people had due notice that the province would not assume the burden of paying the Canadian Pacific railway for running rights. It was felt that the interest on the money borrowed for the purpose of constructing the railway entailed a sufficient burden for the people of New Brunswick and it would not be wise to assume additional obligation, a rental which apparently would have amounted to $100,000 per year. They thought that the Dominion, which had done so much to relieve other provinces in railway matters, could very easily take up the responsibility of providing for the connecting link between Westfield and St. John, The Government of New Brunswick and the directors had been active in seeing to it that an agreement between the Canadian National
railways and the Canadian Pacific railway was consummated, and after considerable delay the Valley railway trains were allowed to run into St. John. The delay was regrettable, and the Government of New Brunswick felt that it was . attributable to the officials of the Canadian National railways and not to the directors of the St. John and Quebec Railway Company or the Provincial Government. Neither the Government of New Brunswick nor the railway company has agreed to be bound by any arrangement with respect to running rights, nor had the Canadian National railways been authorized to act on behalf of the Government of New Brunswick in connection therewith. The Government of New Brunswick did not expect to receive any portion of the receipts for the section between St. John and Westfield.
That is a copy of the official report of the statement made toy the Premier of New Brunswick. It will he readily seen that if the answers of the Minister of Railways are correct, this statement is not correct; while if the statement toy the Premier of New Brunswick is correct, the answers toy the Minister of Railways to my questions are not correct. I hope that when the railway Estimates are before the House the Minister of Railways will clear up this matter, because it is of some concern to our province.
I believe that the Canadian Pacific Railway proposition was that the Government should pay 6 per cent on half the cost of the ten mile section from Westfield Beach to St. John, valued at $3,000,000. That would amount to $90,000 per year. Besides that the Government were to pay a proportion of all the working expenses calculated on a wheeiage basis, which would amount, as the Premier of New Brunswick has said, to $100,000 or more. Perhaps this will give us some insight into why the Canadian National railways made a deficit last year of $47,000,000, for if the system is managed by the same inefficient methods as the running rights were secured by, it is no wonder that we have such a heavy deficit.
The gross earnings of this St. John and Quebec railroad for the five months from October 31, 1918, to March 31, 1919, were $31,505.08. At that rate they would amount to $75,612.12 per annum. For the further period of six months from March 31, 1919, to September 30, 1919, the gross earnings were $24,873.08, or at the rate of $49,746.12 per annum. For the four years that the railway has been in operation, from April 1, 1915, to March 31, 1919, the total gross earnings were $145,121.45. So it will be readily seen that if the management of the Canadian National railways has to pay the Canadian Pacific Railway Company $100,000 yearly for running rights

over ten miles of road, -when the traffic over the whole road for which they want those running rights will only earn at best $49,746 per annum, it would take over four years to earn the money to pay for the running rights over this ten mile section for one year. Surely this is poor business.
The criticism I have to offer, Mr. Speaker, is this: When this road was first contemplated it was proposed to build it so as to connect with the Transcontinental at Grand Falls and with the Intercolonial system at St. John. But unfortunately this railroad has been made a political football from its inception. If the road had been built as it was first intended from Grand Falls to St. John it would have been competing with the Canadian Pacific between these two points. I W'ould not like to say that the Canadian Pacific held this project up, but there have been some sinister influences at werk ever since the line was first surveyed and construction begun. Instead of beginning at one end they began construction in the middle; they built in both directions and have not got to either end yet, although it has been under construction and partly in operation for four years. It still lacks some forty miles of connecting with the Transcontinental at Grand Falls and it lacks the necessary ten miles that would give it connection with the Intercolonial at St. John. However, my criticism in connection with the securing of these running rights is that the management of the Canadian National rai1 ways did not endeavour-it would seem from the statement of the premier of New Brunswick -to secure running rights over the Canadian Pacific until the road was completed and trains were being operated. I know for a fact that trains were operated to Westfield on the St. John and Quebec railway for nearly a week before the Canadian Pacific would allow their train to run into St. John over this road because the arrangements had not been made. According to the Premier of the province of New Brunswick if the management of the Canadian National railways had endeavoured, before the road was completed, to secure running rights from the Canadian Pacific according to its agreement they would have obtained those running rights at that time and would have got much Setter terms from that company, because they could have said "Why, your terms do not suit us. We can build that ten mile section and the interest on the cost of construction yearly will not be more than it would cost us for running rights.

We will build to St. John and compete with you." If they had taken that stand the cost involved to the country would have been less than $100,000 yearly. That is the criticism I have to offer on the subject of not securing running rights for this road, because I am informed on credible authority that no agreement has yet been signed with the Canadian Pacific. If I am wrong the Minister of Railways will be able to correct me ana I will be pleased to submit to his correction. I asked for the production of all the papers and correspondence in connection with this matter some time ago, and although I was promised them they have not yet been brought down. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that whoever is responsible for the carrying out of this promise will see that I get those papers, and I hope that the Minister of Railways, when the railway estimates are before the House, will furnish Parliament and the country with the information in answer to the statement of the Premier of New Brunswick.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have already taken up more time than I expected to, but there is still another matter that I would like to npeak on.
An lion. MEMBER: Carried.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: No doubt hon. members opposite would like me to cease from further remarks because I do not think they have been at all enjoying what I have been saying. I would like to dwell for a few moments on the attitude of hon. members opposite towards the farmers of Canada. They have not missed an opportunity to belittle the farmers or the men who were elected on the Farmers' platform-if you care to call it that. We think that the new Progressive party sounds a little better. Still we are not ashamed of the Farmers' platform; it is a good platform, it is a platform that was promulgated by the men who feed you all.
On more than one occasion hon. gentlemen opposite have accused the farmers of being profiteers. Not to be partial with my favours, I would say that members of the Liberal party have also accused us of being profiteers-although not as often or as- severely as members on the Government side have done. There has been a great deal said about the present high cost of potatoes in Canada or, to be more correct the high cost of potatoes during the last six weeks or two months. Now I desire to give the House a little inside information as to the reason for the high cost of potatoes.

I would like also to state that the potato growers of Canada have not benefited very much by the high cost of potatoes during the last few months for the simple reason that they had none to sell. I think I will be able to prove this to you before I have concluded my remarks. However I want to indulge in a little retrospect before I do that. In 1918 the Union Government instituted a "Greater Production Campaign" and it was one of the wisest things they ever did. I may say I was a member of the Greater Production Committee for our province. I think perhaps I spent as much time as any one individual in New Brunswick in advocating greater production. I attended a number of meetings with the speaker whom the Government paid a good salary for his work. I did not get any salary or any expenses-I did not want any. I also assisted at a number of these meetings. However, I want to tell you that the speaker I have referred to was doubtless as good a man as the Government could have got in New Brunswick-I refer to Professor Keirstead, of the university of New Brunswick. The Government could not have secured a better man for the purpose and he did his work well. Our farmers responded nobly to that appeal. Being potato growers largely in New Brunswick" and not wheat growers, our farmers increased their acreage of potatoes, perhaps forty per cent that year, but, due to adverse weather conditions and the poor grade of fertilizer we got, we were not able to secure as good results as were hoped for. We were not able to get any of the Alsatian potash at all. Now any man who is familiar with potato growing knows that potash is one of the essential plant foods for potatoes. Before the war we were able to get fertilizer, containing ten per cent of Alsatian potash, at $36 per ton. In 1918 some of the fertilizer we were able to obtain, without the ten per cent of Alsatian potash, cost us $65 or $70 a ton. You will readily understand therefor that the resultant yield was not nearly as good as formerly; the crop per acre in New Brunswick in 1918 was smaller than ever before. 'Consequently the cost per barrel of growing this crop of potatoes was higher. The cost per barrel is always higher when you get a small yield because the raising of potatoes is not like manufacturing an axe, a wheelbarrow or anything of that kind. It cost us that year $65 or $70 per acre for fertilizer, and it costs us so much per acre to raise potatoes regardless of whether we got a big yield 180
or a small one. We only secured a yield of fifty or sixty barrels per acre at a much greater cost per barrel than in the case of the 100 or the 125 barrels per acre which had been our usual yield in New Brunswick. In this connection I want to assure you that I know what I am talking about as I was president of the New Brunswick Potato Growers' Association for the first two years it was in operation. It was an organization formed for the better production of potatoes; it was not a commercial organization but was formed for the purpose of promoting seed selection and better methods of cultivation, and getting a larger yield per acre. No ofllcial of that organization got any salary at all; we all gave our time gratis. The New Brunswick potato growers benefited largely by that organization. The average cost per bag of raising potatoes in 1918 in New Brunswick was $1.30-that is grown and harvested. It cost the farmers about ten cents per bag to deliver them at the railway-that is the way we sell them and not in our field. The potatoes sold until some time in November for $1.50 per bag, so you will very readily see the farmers were not making large profits. When the potatoes delivered at the station cost $1.40 and we got $1.50 per bag you will see we were not making any big profit taking into consideration the work done in planting this crop. However, on the 21st of November an article appeared in several Canadian papers-and I am going to read it to you. I am not like the hon. member for Algoma East (M,r. Nicholson); I am not ashamed to give you the name of the paper and the date. I could not help thinking when the hon. member was quoting that article with regard to the way the British protected themselves by raising .prices to cut out competition that that quotation was taken from one of the Hearst publications. I was inclined to think so by the tone of it, because I think it is one of the most unusual things in the world to raise your price to cut out competition. I never was able to do it. This is the information which was sent out by the 'Canada Food Board:
Potato Crop of Canada for 1918 Set New Record. Exportable Surplus. Over and Above all Needs for Domestic Use and Seeding Canada has 28,433,000 Bushels to Send Abroad.
Ottawa, November 20.-A revised estimate of the Canadian potato crop from figures In possession of the Canada Food Board shows an exportable surplus in six provinces of 28,433,-C00 bushels over all requirements for domestic use and seeding.



It goes on to say that in the other provinces of Canada there will he none for export, but that the total export for Canada will be 28,433,000 bushels. In view of the fact that Canada had never exported more than 4,000,000 bushels in one year, you can judge what effect this had in the market in which we were selling our potatoes.-and that year we were exporting largely to the United States and Cuba. I received a letter from a prominent dealer in Cuba who had evidently got my name as President of the New Brunswick Potato Growers' Association, and perhaps he thought I was a more important man than I really was. In this letter he inquired about conditions in New Brunswick and asked if this large amount of potatoes was actually available in Canada for export. I told him that while I did not have anything but the Government report,
I did not believe any such thing, and I think that later information which I have received has fully justified that statement. However, this report had gone out. broadcast to the dealers in the United States and Cuba to whom we were shipping our potatoes, and it was natural that they should expect to get potatoes for little or nothing. Potatoes are not like wheat or hay; they are perishable, and you must sell them within a year from the time they are produced. Now, I had the export returns for that year and knew what they were, but I put a question on the Order Paper to which I received an answer on April 19th, because I wanted the Department of Agriculture to put themselves on record. I was somewhat in the position of the Minister of the Interior, who said in a recent speech in this House with regard to resolutions passed by the G.W.V.A., that he was just'a little suspicious of their motives in moving these resolutions. Well, I was just a little suspicious that my hon. friends opposite might question my figures, but I knew that they could not deny their own. The question was as follows)
What was the total export of potatoes from Canada to all countries from the crop grown in 1918, giving the number of bushels exported each month from August 1, 1918, to July 31, 1919?	[DOT]
To which the reply was:
Hon. Mr. Burrell: The total export of potatoes from Canada to all countries from August 1, 1918, to July 31, 1919, is as follows: The department has no information as to the export of potatoes as to crop grown in 1918.
The reason why I asked for the returns by the month was this: we begin to harvest our potatoes towards the end of August and we finish marketing them before the end [Mr. Caldwell.)
of the following July, because they axe perishable. Very few are shipped in July, so that shipments from August 1918 to July 1919 cover the 1918 crop. No potatoes of the former year's crop are carried over until August of the following year; nor are any left in the country from the crop of the year before to be shipped out after the end of July. The answer then proceeded to give the following figures of the exports by months between August 1st, 1918, and July 31st, 1919:
1918.	Bushels.
Month of: August.. September October.. November. December.
4,321
27,861
275,952
515,800
328,866
1919.
Month of: January. February March. . April. . . May.. . . June.. . . July.. ..
438,343
350,653
599,613
472,939
877,659
200,227
58,613
Instead of 28,000,000 bushels, which the Canada Food Board stated to be the exportable surplus, these figures show a total of 4,150,847 bushels of potatoes available for export from Canada for that year.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to give you the effect of this statement which was published in the Canadian newspapers and heralded broadcast throughout the world. Up to the 24th November, about three or four days after this statement appeared in the Canadian papers, potatoes had been selling at $1.50 a hag or $3 a barrel. _ The price immediately dropped off after this: it went down to 75 cents a bag; at least half the potatoes that were exported from New Brunswick were sold at from 75 cents to $1 a bag-potatoes that cost the farmers $1.40 a hag to produce and haul to the railway siding. So you can understand that the farmers of New Brunswick were not making much money in the growing of potatoes; they were not profiteering. In March, however, the supply of potatoes ran out; this 28,000,000 bushels did not materialize and the price went up at one jump to $3 a barrel or $1.50 a bag. It advanced ' to $2.50 a hag, and there was not a sufficient supply to meet the demand. Consequently our potato growers in New Brunswick-and I think what is true of New Brunswick is true of the other potato-growing sections of Canada-in the spring of 1919 did not plant a very big acreage of potatoes, and I do not think that the people of this country can

blame them very much for that. They said: If the Government, while urging increase of acreage and of production generally and calling upon the farmers to raise a larger crop at greater expense than ever before, issue an absolutely false statement that causes us to lose 65 cents a bag on our potatoes, certainly we are not going to be caught in that trap again. As I say, therefore, the farmers planted a very short acreage of potatoes last year, and as high as $12 a barrel has been offered for them. In that connection, as I said before-and I do not fear successful contradiction-the potatoes were not in the country. Now, it may be said that this statement was sent out by some official who is no longer in the service of the Government. But I am inclined to think that the same man is there yet, because a ^further estimate was made of the quantity*of potatoes said to be in the farmers' hands' on April 24, 1920. I got the following from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics a short time ago:
Ottawa, April 24, 1920. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics issued to-day a press bulletin giving in summary form the results of its annual inquiry as to the total quantities of wheat, oats, barley and flaxseed in Canada, at the end of March, the stocks of all kinds of agricultural products remaining in farmers' 'hands at the same date.
I will give the quotation only in regard to potatoes, because it is potatoes that I am talking about. This statement says that the stock of potatoes in the farmers' hands on April 24, 1920, as stated by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics was 31,646,000 bushels, compared with 32,836,000 bushels last year and 24,130,500 bushels in 1918. Now, here is a quotation from a paper, and by the way, I am able to give the authority for this1 too; I do not believe in making any quotations without citing the authority for them. This despatch is headed: "Says Canada is Swept Clean of Potatoes." It is a Canadian press despatch dated at Montreal, April 23, the day before the statement was issued by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics to which I have referred.
Montreal, April 23,-Are American buyers invading Canada in droves to buy up every potato that can be discovered? The assertion that they are doing so is made by local dealers who give this as the greatest reason for the high price now being paid here by the housewives for the family supplies.
Here is the way a dealer sums up the situation :
"It is almost impossible to get potatoes anywhere in the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island now." 1801
And these are the big potato-growing provinces.
"The Americans have sent swarms of buyers into the Dominion and there are four or five men bidding for everything that is available One United States buyer told us he had got five carloads at $5.75 per bag f.o.b. in Prince Edward Island ; another said he had found eighty cars for Pittsburg at the same rate. I tried to get two cars for Montreal in Prince Edward Island. After a long time I got them at $4 75 f.o.b. there for a bag of 90 lbs. It costs about 7o cents per bag to bring them on to Montreal making the cost here about $5.50. But the real reason why Montrealers are paying such enormous prices how is that the country has been swept clean of its crop by the Americans and so it has passed over the border."
I want to tell the House why the potato growers received such high prices for these potatoes. You will say: Well, the farmers are profiteering in getting such high prices for these potatoes. The farmers had already sold all the potatoes they intended to sell, as I can prove that by any number of witnesses, but I think my word is sufficient. These were potatoes which the farmers had intended to plant his spring, and a large number of potato growers have sold half the quantity of their seed potatoes this spring, having been tempted by the high prices. Consequently, the acreage planted in potatoes will he short this year, and owing to the statement issued by the Canada Pood Board on November 21, 1918, there will be high prices for potatoes next fall because these things have far-reaching results. As Premier Drury wisely said in the Ontario legislature a short time ago, when he was asked to put an embargo on a few ears of potatoes on track in Toronto, " it is a very unsafe thing to interfere with the law of supply and demand,"
I think that concludes my remarks. No, it does not; I have one other thing.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
ti,M\CvfLDcWELL:	Do not be disturbed
though, Mr. Speaker, because I will not detain you very long. I want to compare the attitude this Government adopts towards our farmers with the attitude of the authorities in the United States to their farmers, and I want to read this quotation also from the Associated Press:
Washington, May 25.-Decrease in agricultural production may result in the United States becoming dependent on overseas food supplies, Herbert Hoover-
That is a name to conjure with in the United States and perhaps in Canada, I am sure it is in Europe, when you come to talk of food supplies and food matters.

to-day declared in a letter to Representative Diddliek, Republican, Montana, setting forth the

former Food Administrator's views as to practical measures to insure better returns to the farmer for his labour and investment.
Asserting that present high prices of commodities sooner or later will decrease. Mr. Hoover said " this deflation must not begin on the farmer." Shortage in production outside the United States, wild extravagance, and misuse of extended credits for speculation and profiteering and non-essential production are contributing factors in the present inflated prices, he wrote. When the collapse occurs, he predicted, intermediate dealers will be able to pass the greatest portion to the back of the farmer, no matter how carefully handled. r " The whole marketing system in many of bur commodities is indirect, expensive, wasteful, obsolete and increases the margin unduly," the latter continued.
Our manufacturing industries have developed out of pace with our agriculture and labour is being drawn in thousands from the farm to the town at wages which the farmer cannot contend against
A commission studying the whole situation, Mr. Hoover declared, would deal with theso things with that same common sense-
I .should like hon. members to listen, to this:
__with which similar commissions of farmers
met the great economic problems of the food administration during the war with equal consideration for farmer, distributor and consumer.


Mr. J. M. DOUGLAS (Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a good deal of interest to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Victoria and Oarleton (Mr. Caldwell). I thought when he iwas giving us that long defence of the high ^ price of potatoes, he took fully longer time to explain why the farmer was getting this high price than the famous manufacturer from Sherbrooke, who gave utterance to that famous phrase that he "was not working for the glory of God", took in explaining the cost of his woollen product. I am inclined to think that even that Sherbrooke manufacturer made a better shift of his defence in connection with the high price of woollen goods than the hon. member for Victoria and Oarleton in connection with the high price of potatoes.	_
The hon. member, in the course of his remarks, made this most remarkable statement, that he could not understand a Minister of Finance delivering a Budget and stating that the resolutions contained in it would come into force the day on which it was delivered. He was under the impression that it would be necessary for the Budget to pass this House and receive the assent of the Governor General. If the hon. gentleman had only stopped to think for a moment, he would have seen what a tremendous loss to the country it would have meant
	1
in any Budget proposal which dealt with trade and in which profiteering to a most gigantic extent might have taken glace provided such notice were given. It is to be hoped that the hon. gentleman who is leading the Agrarian party has in his ranks men who more thoroughly understand how business is conducted than the hon. member for Victoria and Oarleton, or this country would suffer very severely if the prognostications which these gentlemen give us should ever come true, namely, that they would govern the affairs of this country along the lines which they have laid down.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I rise to a question ot privilege. I do not think the hon. gentleman can find anywhere in my remarks a statement that I expect to govern this country.


James McCrie Douglas: If that is a question of privilege, I hope the hon. gentleman is satisfied.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I did not hear the hon. gentleman when he rose, and I thought he was rising to ask a question. He would not be in order in any case, in rising now to a question of privilege..


James McCrie Douglas: I am not going to detain the House for every long at this late hour; but I wish to discuss the Budget for a few moments and to give reasons for the course which I shall pursue when the vote takes place on the amendment of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's. We have heard, in the discussion of the Budget, the question of protection,- moderate, adequate, and high and free trade. I have been a member of this House for about eleven years, and I -have heard that same subject discussed during all the time I have .been a member of this House. For a great part of that time I supported a Government which had as its platform ^ a policy of tariff for revenue, and I am in the same position to-night. The view which I hold is that the Government should lay down a tariff which would be productive of revenue, and I see that principle evolved in the Budget as laid down here. We have come through a series of extreme years caused by the war. We have incurred an enormous debt which has to be met, no matter what our theories or pet views may he, and I am convinced that the revenue of this country must be raised from every conceivable source. I might have the profoundest respect for the moderate tariff or tariff-for-revenue views. Under ordinary conditions a moderate tariff would supply the means for Taising the

revenue of this country, hut- under present-day conditions, with a debt of over two bilion dollars, with a sparse population such as we have, I am convinced that we have to resort to every measure of taxation to preserve the credit of Canada at this particular time.
When the question comes up, what is protection, I find this position. I have listened very carefully to this debate on the Budget this session because I took a course last year which caused me to be careful how I should go at the present time. I have listened very carefully to the arguments brought forward as to how the revenue might be raised. I have listened to hon. gentlemen of the progressive party telling us how they would raise the revenue, but I have failed up to this moment to hear one constructive speech, which would lead me to believe that they could raise the necessary money to carry on the affairs of this country by any programme they have brought forward. The amendment of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) has left me in the same quandry. If -that amendment were carried, logically it defeats all the proposals under the present Budget. It does away with the income tax, it does away with the luxury tax, it does away with the sales tax. It obliterates all the new proposals and says:	We want to assist
the consumer by reducing tariff taxation. Now that does not commend itself to my best thought. I do not believe it is logical. I do not believe the people of this country would take me seriously if I would support an amendment of that kind under presentrday conditions.
I do not for one moment want any one to imagine that I have discarded any of the beliefs which I hold as to what constitutes a tariff in this country. We hear the question of adequate or moderate protection raised. I have made many inquiries as to what protection means. To my mind any tariff, whether it is five per cent or ten per cent, constitutes protection to a certain degree. I cannot conceive of any tariff being placed on goods imported into this country which would not afford some measure of protection. To that extent I am a protectionist.
When we consider the plan for raising the revenue put forward on behalf of opponents of the Government we are confronted with the platform put forward by the official Opposition. To my mind, it is a good platform. If the official Opposition would go further, and if I believed that
the people of this country thought that they would raise the revenue under the platform which has been laid down, I should find no fault with it. But I am convinced, as I stated before, that that platform is not sufficient to raise the necessary revenue for this country under present conditions.
I commend the Government for the imposition of an income tax. It is a true Liberal principle. It is a direct tax. I commend them also for the new Budget proposals. I perhaps might criticise the details of the presumed luxury tax. I think $9 for a pair of shoes may not be the proper basis for exemption. I do not think $45 for a suit of clothes is the proper basis for exemption. I am positive that $5 for a hat is not the proper basis for exemption. I am also sure that $5 for underwear is not the proper basis for exemption. But these are matters of detail. The principle is there that those who can pay must pay, and if the effect is to curb extravagance then I am heart and! soul in favour of the tax. When it comes to the question of the sales tax, we hear the statement made on all bands, why, the consumer pays it. Certainly he pays it. We are all consumers in this country, and how can we avoid paying it? It makes no difference how the taxes are imposed, the consumer pays them, because there is nobody else to pay them.
As to this question of the manufacturer absorbing, the manufacturer absorbs just ias much as his business will permit him to absorb, just as my hon. friend from Garleton (Mr. Caldwell) absorbs the potato crop. Just so far as he can get the price, just that fax is the absorption. That is taken up by all manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and other distributers. I have no brief for any of the merchandising class, but my judgment is that in this Dominion *of Canada our trade is conducted along as honourable lines as in any other country. I am of opinion that the less restrictions we put on trade the better it is for the country, and when we get rid of this tremendous load we are carrying at the present time, I say, give us all the freedom of trade that we can have. In the meantime we are dealing with conditions which must be met, and in my judgment the present proposals put forward by the Minister of Finance are the best proposals that I have heard from any party in this House, and I therefore intend to support the Budget.


Mr. J. A. ROBB:: On behalf of the Opposition I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.


William Foster Cockshutt: I think the arrangement is not being observed by my hon.. {friend from Huntingdon (Mr. Robb). Another speaker was to have spoken on that side of the House, then the adjournment was to be moved by myself.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: A motion for adjournment has been submitted, and I must put it. It is not debatable.
Motion negatived.


William Foster Cockshutt: Mr. Speaker, I have hesitated a good deal to enter on a discussion of this matter, having spoken on many Budgets during the last fifteen years, but if there is one subject more than another that I think I know a little about it is commercial and manufacturing propositions. It has been .my (life study and my life work, and I have had a great deal of experience not only in manufacturing, but as an importer and exporter of merchandise. So with these qualifications, I think I would certainly be expected by my constituents to express my opinions upon a question such as this. As the night has worn away and day is at hand I think it would now be in order for me to move that the debate be adjourned to be renewed this day at three o'clock. I therefore move the adjournment of the debate.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We are confronted here with a situation which is somewhat awkward. Unless hon. members will permit the motion to be made by unanimous consent, the debate cannot at this stage be adjourned.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There cannot be two
successive motions to adjourn the debate unless there is some intermediate proceeding.


William Foster Cockshutt: Well, I have proceeded to a certain extent already.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member for
Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) moves that the debate be now adjourned. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Do I understand that
some hon. members insist that the motion be not entertained unanimously?


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed to make a statement, I may say that it is quite true, as the hon. member for Brantford has said, that there was an

understanding that we would put up another man, but that understanding was arrived at early in the evening when we expected our friend would come on not later than eleven o'clock. For my part I have no objection to adjourning the debate, on the understanding that the hon. member will be brief to-morrow and not occupy the whole day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On the motion of Rt. Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 12.50 a.m. Friday.
Friday, May 28, 1920.